[ietf-dkim] RFC4871 5322.From Binding - Proposal to relax it.

[Bill.Oxley at cox.com]

John,
we can discuss it for the very reason you pointed out, people want to use/sell 3rd party signing, so lets discuss a policy and write it up. I know my company wants one and I suspect a few others might as well.  I know that some folks fought very hard to keep it out originally but as I pointed out then, its time will come
On Sep 16, 2010, at 8:50 AM, John R. Levine wrote:

> Since there's no such thing as a "3rd party signing policy" in DKIM or 
> ADSP, I don't understand why we're even discussing this.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> 
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
>>> bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 12:57 AM
>>> To: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
>>> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871 5322.From Binding - Proposal to relax
>> it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> Since anyone can generate a DKIM signature with a signing domain they
>>> control, an unconstrained 3rd party signing policy means precisely
>>> nothing. Without some kind of constraint (1st party only or a defined
>> set
>>> of third party signers) arbitrary senders could meet the policy
>>> requirements.
>>> 
>>> - 1.
>>> 
>>> Scott K
>> 
>> Make that a -2 for all the reasons Scott indicated.
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
>> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>> 
> 
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
> Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
> Please consider the environment before sending e-mail.<smime.p7s><ATT00001..txt>