[ietf-dkim] list vs contributor signatures, was Wrong Discussion

[Ian Eiloart]

--On 27 April 2010 12:34:56 -0400 "John R. Levine" <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:

>
> Most lists will break signatures, for a variety of reasons that aren't
> going to change, starting with subject line tags.  If the signature is
> broken, you need something else so the list can assert that a message was
> signed when it arrived.  But such assertions are only credible if the
> list  itself is trustworthy.  If you already know you trust the list, how
> much  practical benefit is there to the assertion?

Not much. It seems to me that the best application of DKIM here would be to 
ensure that posters to closed lists are (likely to be) who they say they 
are.

For example, a user could assert that all their posts will be signed, or a 
list manager could assert that only signed emails will be accepted from 
certain domains.

I manage a list server that is frequently spammed. Not much of the spam 
gets through, but occasionally a spammer gets lucky and picks a sender 
address that gets through.


-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/