[ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required

[Charles Lindsey]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:13:20 -0000, Stephen Farrell  
<stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie> wrote:

> Charles Lindsey wrote:

>>  I think it is up to the DKIM WG to try to spot all the things that are  
>> likely to break when DKIM starts to be implemented, and to do what it  
>> can in its drafts to forestall them.
>
> No. "All" is not reasonable. (Obvious, non-controversial things are
> easy, of course, but I've not seen many of those.)

Yes, "All" is clearly an overkill, but we need to look at all scenarios  
that are likely to be common. We have already identified mailing lists and  
resenders as areas that need thinking about. I am just pointing out that  
Gateways from News are another, especially as they appear to provide a way  
for email to "leak" out of domains that claim to be "we sign everything".

Email is generated by all sorts of agents that could hardly be described  
as "MUA"s. Gateways from other media is one of them.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5