[ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiple linked signatures

[Hector Santos]

Wietse Venema wrote:

>> John Levine:
>> I agree that we are not dictating local policy.  But I really think that
>> it's our job to dictate the definition of what the signature validation
>> algorithm is.  As I've said before, everyone remains free to do whatever
>> they want with messages whether or not the signature verifies, including
>> applying various heuristics to develop opinions about unsigned messages.
> 
> Perhaps some people are confusing verification and presentation.
> 
> Verification: it is critical that all DKIM verifiers agree on what
> is a valid DKIM signature, without falling back on heuristics, such
> as heuristics to repair messages.
> 
> Presentation: after the valid/invalid decision is irevocably made,
> it is up to application/policy to decide how/if things will be
> presented to users.  Heuristics of various sorts can be useful in
> this domain, such as message repair, known signer associations,
> etc., but those heuristics must not determine the validity of the
> DKIM signature.

MAJOR +1!!

For me, there needs to be a reason to add DKIM verification. Signing 
might come afterwards after we see how VERIFICATION works.   I prefer 
not to get into the "labeling" game, either the purported DKIM message 
is acceptable or not.  This is why we need to get the "SSP" concept 
squared away because I am afraid that too much failures will hurt DKIM 
ultimate wide adoption.   I am still convince that most people are not 
going to sign mail if the ROUTE it takes is proven to break the 
integrity of the mail.  So DKIM will be mostly benefitial atleast at the 
early state for specific routes, mostly 1 to 1 routes.  But thats my 
opinion.

---
HLS