[ietf-dkim] Modified Introduction text forrfc4871-errata (resend)

[hector]

Douglas Otis wrote:

> On Jun 18, 2009, at 11:18 AM, hector wrote:
> 
>> Douglas Otis wrote:
>>
>>>>> 1) Why?
>>>> There is use in specifying an API here.  Every other protocol  
>>>> we've  named so far as examples have an API, whether de facto from  
>>>> lots of  experience, or implicit from the spec that defines it the  
>>>> protocol,  or something actually explicit defining the API.   
>>>> There's no  evidence that this is a bad idea.
>>> This has already been defined by RFC 4871 as the i= value, and  
>>> when  that is not available, this defaults to @<d= value>.
>> This is why I as seeking an answer to why just d= and not anything  
>> else.  What it for a reputation system?
> 
> The response from a closed group of large email providers regarding  
> how they would like to have their reputation handled was to have their  
> entire domain's messages receive the _same_ reputation.  This is not  
> surprising.  Treating all of their messages en mass makes it  
> impractical to isolate abusive accounts or to retain delivery  
> integrity.  :^(
> 
> This is also why they wish to ignore DKIM's potential for replay  
> abuse.  DKIM suffers the problems found with any cryptographic  
> solution that can be replayed.  Once all of the domain's signatures  
> are white-listed as suggested, this will invite massive levels of abuse.
> 
> -Doug
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html