[ietf-dkim] Mailing lists and s/mime & dkim signatures - mua considerations
dhc at dcrocker.net
Tue Aug 24 09:31:30 PDT 2010
On 8/24/2010 9:11 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>>> But again, no verbage that matches your assertion.
>> I wasn't aware that my statement was offered as a quotation. I
>> certainly didn't intend it to be.
> Your statement was taken (at least by me) as an assertion that begged for
> supporting evidence.
I thought you were questioning the precise wording.
As for 'supporting', sorry for assuming that folks on this list were
sufficiently familiar with the follow-on work done by this group...
>> Errata, RFC 5672:
>>> 8. RFC 4871, Section 2.11, Identity Assessor
>>> A module that consumes DKIM's mandatory payload, which is the responsible
>>> Signing Domain Identifier (SDID). The module is dedicated to the
>>> assessment of the delivered identifier.
> I read it and I reread it and I still nothing that supports your assertion
> that the main purpose is assessment by reputation filtering engines.
You don't think that "The module is dedicated to the assessment of the delivered
identifier." has that meaning? What exactly do you think it /does/ mean?
>>> If the signature passes, reputation information is used to assess the
>>> signer and that information is passed to the message filtering system.
> Still doesn't indicate "primacy", only that reputation can be part of the
Really? You want this exchange to hinge on my use of an emphasis?
As for my use of 'reputation', that's a convenient label that is popularly used
to refer to an assessment phase.
Perhaps the question should be: If you are that uncomfortable with the language
I used, what alternative language would you offer. Having that would allow some
>>> 5.5. Assessing
>>> A popular use of reputation information is as input to a Filtering
>>> Engine that decides whether to deliver -- and possibly whether to
>>> specially mark -- a message. Filtering Engines have become complex and
> "popular" does not equal primary.
By some popular measures, it does.
I'll assume that it's too early in the day for you to have started drinking, so
I'll have to admit to confusion about this exchange. If it's just to take shots
at me, while I readily acknowledge my convenience as a target, that's better
done offline. If it is for a constructive purpose, such as improving group
understanding about DKIM, please suggest superior language.
Although I certainly thought that the citation base I supplied was more than
sufficient, you appear to be particularly sensitive to specific vocabulary.
> And yet again I read and I reread but find nada that says reputation is
> primary. Perhaps if you had said "In my humble opinion reputation is the
> I remember that we collectively kicked the can down the road by saying what
> someone did with the value returned in evaluating a message for DKIM was out
> of scope.
First, I believe in self-awareness. For better or worse, at the least, this
requires my acknowledging that I never view my opinion as humble.
Second, you appear to be seeking to enforce a linguistic etiquette for the list
that is exceptional. Possibly a good idea, but certainly not well-established.
Third, I think that the citation base did amply justify the focus of my
statement. Most especially, the diagrams and accompanying discussion that I
cited entirely supported my comment, IMNSHO.
Fourth, there is a difference between saying that the /details/ are out of scope
and saying that the /construct/ is out of scope. This is tied directly to the
construct of DKIM's delivering a specific payload. The delivery crosses a
processing line, to another module. While DKIM does not get to specify the
internal details of that module, it has to have some basic sense of what the
module is for.
Otherwise, there's no understanding of the purpose that DKIM is intended to satisfy.
Oh. Wait. That's exactly the confusion that is so often demonstrated on this list.
Such as right now.
Perhaps we should endeavor to fix that?
I thought we did...
More information about the ietf-dkim