[ietf-dkim] Modified Introduction text forrfc4871-errata (resend)
gmail.sant9442 at winserver.com
Thu Jun 18 16:34:45 PDT 2009
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.
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
More information about the ietf-dkim