[ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists
pbaker at verisign.com
Tue Sep 12 10:12:05 PDT 2006
"I sign all email, and respectfully suggest that the risk of harm due to accepting unsigned email is greater than the risk of deleting all email transported through any body or signature altering gateways that cannot be otherwise authenticated"
I don't see mail forwarders as a real problem here. A mail forwarder relationship is by consent of the recipient or the mail should be tossed anyway. Since it is by consent of the recipient the mail forwarder is logically a part of the recipient mail infrastructure and the whole 'problem' of modified messages is irrelevant.
Again: we are building a spring here, not a mousetrap.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org
> [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 3:11 PM
> To: Thomas A. Fine
> Cc: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists
> Hi Thomas,
> This isn't really directed at you, but I've wondered each
> time someone has said something like:
> Thomas A. Fine wrote:
> > "I sign all email, and do NOT permit email through any body or
> > signature altering gateways"
> I've no idea how a sending domain could enforce the "do NOT permit"
> there. Neither in practice, nor in principle. Does anyone?
> (This may just be my own ignorance of course, I don't claim
> to be a mail
> If its unenforceable, then I don't see why anyone would
> bother making the statement.
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
More information about the ietf-dkim