[ietf-dkim] Proposed changes to MLM draft

[Hector Santos]

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hector Santos [mailto:hsantos at isdg.net]
>> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 1:00 PM
>> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
>> Cc: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
>> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposed changes to MLM draft
>>
>> I truly hope your are not force to split your document that minimizes
>> the need for Mailing List Software developers to correctly engineer
>> their products without producing erroneous DKIM signatures problems
>> for members.
> 
> I don't see how the proposed document split minimizes anything.
> 
> There's a legitimate question of whether or not we should try to 
> compel MLM developers to write their code to preserve author 
> signatures.  We can debate that question, but if in the end consensus 
> says it's not a useful goal then we shouldn't bother producing text 
> that says it is.

> That's a separate issue from the list signing traffic that goes 
> through it irrespective of author signatures.

Once again, the real issue is being pushed and brushed aside regarding 
the developed WG product products:

     RFC 4686 - Analysis of Threats Motivating DKIM
     RFC 5016 - Requirements for DKIM Signing Practices Protocol
     RFC 5617 - ADSP

which 100% relates to the "Question, Debate" to the issues regarding 
signature violations, breaking them and/or preservation.

So what are we really debating?  Should MLM or any DKIM verifier 
ignore theses in the interest of preserving something that is 100% 
known to be fault or violation?

We need to get to the heart of the issue here because its been the 
same conflict for too long.  If POLICY is part of the picture, MLM has 
no choice to support this portion of the DKIM protocol engineering - 
otherwise you have "bugs," incompatibility issues and possible 
accusations of reputation harm by intentional ignoring a IETF produced 
standard that exist 100% design to address this signature violation 
issues.

The only way to remove these BUGS is to get of out the POLICY related 
WG work products.

IMO, while policy is still part of the picture, your MLM draft touches 
base with all the issues. No split is required.

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com