[ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists annex MUA considerations

[Bill.Oxley at cox.com]

DKIM only asserts that a signer signed a message. Nothing more or less. 
On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:25 PM, Daniel Black wrote:

> On Monday 16 August 2010 09:25:06 Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> On 8/14/2010 8:50 PM, Daniel Black wrote:
>>> I intially saw a need for a MUA considerations because:
>>> * I still hope DKIM will help protect email identity
>> 
>> "email identity" is an ambiguous term.
>> 
>> All sorts of value-added enhancements might be possible, on top of DKIM,
>> but "protecting email identity" isn't really what DKIM is defined to do.
> 
> rfc4781 Abstract - last sentence. Still abstract however this was a general 
> lead-in discussion.
> 
>>> * end users rely, or should rely, on their MUA to present verified
>>> identity information in an easily digestable way.
>> 
>> Human usability issues with respect to security is, at best, extremely
>> poorly understood.  The state of the design art appears to have no idea
>> what is effective.
> 
> There are a number of significant papers on the topic available. Either way 
> DKIM provides a domain responsibility signature and providing some information 
> to the end user is useful. I agree that informational rfcs should stay away 
> from design art however I do see a description of useful information as 
> constructive to MUA implementors.
> 
> 
>>> * MLMs break signatures and MUA will still need to present verified
>>> identity
>> 
>> As noted, you are seeking to have DKIM perform functions it was not
>> designed to perform.  There should be no surprise that it falls shy of
>> your desired mark.
> 
> While it seems to be the intent of many within this working group to define 
> dkim in such a way that its only plausable use is dkim reputation, a little 
> constructive thought to other benefits for verifiers, filters and recipients 
> would be appreciated. If it could be done without snarky comments that would 
> be even better.
> 
> Recipients are an important aspect of the message flow and an attempting to 
> define a benefit to them from DKIM is an element of what I'm attempting to 
> define.
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html