[ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM
signing complete" required
chl at clerew.man.ac.uk
Fri Nov 24 12:49:50 PST 2006
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
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
More information about the ietf-dkim