[ietf-dkim] list vs contributor signatures, was Wrong Discussion
brett.mcdowell at me.com
Tue May 25 15:38:31 PDT 2010
On May 10, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
> On May 10, 2010, at 11:59 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>> Apart from ADSP rules, a broken signature must be treated as if there was no
>>> signature at all. That in itself is not the problem. The problem with broken
>>> signatures is that people will not buy into a technology (DKIM) if it will
>>> not cover a significant part of their e-mail.
>> Of course. That's why MLMs should sign their mail, or equvalently the MSA
>> they use should sign it. Problem solved, right?
>> Free bonus: MLMs can sign the list mail even if the contributor didn't
>> sign it.
> +1. It's pretty much a non-issue (unless you believe that DKIM is
> magic fairy dust that will prevent all "fraudulent use of your brand").
I believe we can disagree without being disagreeable. I'm sure there is no one on this list (or in the world) who thinks DKIM is magic fairy dust that will prevent all fraudulent use of a brand.
I would like to think we are all on this list making a good faith effort to explore and debate the right way to deal with the status quo, including the option of sustaining it. I personally don't agree with the position that the status quo should be sustained, but I respect both that position and those who articulate it.
More information about the ietf-dkim