[ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Negative Commentary corrections

[Douglas Otis]

On Sep 21, 2006, at 12:04 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> Douglas Otis wrote:
>
>> The process of validating an email-address is common place and  
>> done by thousands of applications from mailing-list mangers, the  
>> assignment of email-certificates, or granting access to web-sites.
>
> NAK, that's far from common, from four mail providers I used to  
> know only one enforced submission rights (=> good reverse path,  
> arbitrary header), and another - putting it mildly - implemented  
> his own vision of 4409 8.1 (=> good reverse path with enforced  
> matching 2822-From), offering the more common "whatever you say"  
> for a small monthly fee (maybe to sponsor their abuse desk).

For any version of DKIM to realistically offer assurances of an email- 
address, some form of account/email-address correspondence is  
required.  The version of the email-address policy suggested does not  
required the assertion that the email-address is valid.  However, an  
ability to communicate when an email-address is valid, and have this  
presented by a well-known and trusted domain will bring considerable  
value to DKIM as a specialized service.

> BTW, I'm looking for interested folks helping to fix RFC 4409 8.1,  
> and then push a derived 4409bis to STD (see rfc822 list).

I'll review that document and subscribe to the rfc822 list.

-Doug