[ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?

[Steve Atkins]

On Dec 7, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> On Friday 07 December 2007 12:27, Steve Atkins wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 2007, at 8:16 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> If you believe that any random MTA has an equal right to emit mail
>>> claiming to
>>> be from my domain, then I think there's little left to discuss.
>>
>> If you don't want people to forward your mail, then you're not  
>> obliged
>> to send mail to them.
>>
>> If, on the other hand, you want to participate in a store-and-forward
>> protocol then you don't get to say that other hosts are not  
>> allowed to
>> emit mail claiming to be from your domain.
>>
> And that's also orthogonal to my point.  That would be an argument  
> against
> SPF, but not SSP.  If my mail is transparently forwarded (without
> modification) then SSP presents no obstacle to store and forward.   
> If someone
> changes my message, then it's no longer my message.  The fact that  
> DKIM
> signature break when messages are modified is a feature.

You acknowledge and expect that mail claiming to be "from"
your domain may be legitimately received and re-emitted by an MTA
without your explicit permission or knowledge  (by the
simple fact that both you and they participate in the global email
infrastructure).. Perfectly reasonable, that's just how email works.

But that also means that "any random MTA has
an equal right to emit mail claiming to be from your domain".

So you're contradicting your previous statement. You probably want
to start over and talk about your real concern, rather than "use of  
your domain
in mail emitted by other MTAs".

Cheers,
   Steve