[ietf-dkim] 1358 ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.

[Stephen Farrell]

Doug,

That was agreed to be closed on the jabber session.

No-one spoke against that, so please consider this closed/rejected.

(Eliot - you can close it now, thanks.)

Stephen.

Douglas Otis wrote:
> https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1358
> 
> Prior to the policy requirements, there were several supporting this 
> concept of "strict".  There is a need for more than just an assertion 
> that "all messages are signed."  Making an assertion that "all messages 
> are signed" might mean only messages with invalid signatures should be 
> introduced by services known to damage signatures.  This would be an 
> incorrect assumption when dealing with commerce related transactions 
> from a heavily phished domains.  The need for this added assertion is 
> already found in Eric's latest SSP draft.
> 
> Two assertions are required when all messages are initially signed.  
> Otherwise the partial information of "all messages are signed" may 
> induce improper handling.  This would be especially true when sources 
> known to damage signatures are used to enable exceptions.
> 
> To avoid improper handling two assertions must be allowed:
> 
> 1 ) All messages are signed.
> 2 ) Services that might damage the signature are avoided.
> 
> -Doug
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according 
> tohttp://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>