[ietf-dkim] Proposed changes to MLM draft
hsantos at isdg.net
Mon Aug 30 13:46:00 PDT 2010
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
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
More information about the ietf-dkim