[mail-vet-discuss] Draft as of 9/4/2007

[SM]

At 15:16 04-09-2007, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

In Section 2.3, I suggest using engineering.example.net instead of 
engineering.example.edu (RFC 2606).

>    The initial set of entries in this registry is as follows:
>
>    +------------+---------+--------+----------------------------------+
>    |   Method   | defined | ptype  | property                         |
>    +------------+---------+--------+----------------------------------+
>    |    auth    | RFC2554 | smtp   | auth                             |
>    +------------+---------+--------+----------------------------------+
>    |    dkim    | RFC4871 | header | value of signature "i" tag       |
>    +------------+---------+--------+----------------------------------+
>    | domainkeys | RFC4870 | header | From or Sender                   |
>    +------------+---------+--------+----------------------------------+

I'm not sure whether domainkeys should be included in there as it has 
Historic status.

>Appendix B.  Legacy MUAs
>
>    Implementors of this proposal should be aware that many MUAs are
>    unlikely to be retrofit to support the new header field and its
>    semantics.  In the interests of convenience and quicker adaptation, a
>    delivery MTA might want to consider adding things that are processed
>    by existing MUAs in addition to the Authentication-Results header
>    field.  One suggestion is to include a Priority: header field, on
>    messages that don't already have such a header field, containing a
>    value that reflects the strength of the authentication that was
>    accomplished, e.g. "low" for weak or no authentication, "normal" or
>    "high" for good or strong authentication.

I understand the rationale behind this paragraph.  It attempts to 
solve the Legacy MUA issue.  However, the proposal redefines a header 
already defined in the Mail Headers registry for a particular purpose.

>C.3.  Service provided, authentication done
>
>    A message that was delivered by an MTA that conforms to this standard
>    and applied some message authentication:
>
>         Authentication-Results: mail-router.example.com;
>                   spf=pass smtp.mail=sender at example.com
>         From: sender at example.net
>         Received: from dialup-1-2-3-4.example.net
>                       (dialup-1-2-3-4.example.net [192.0.128.1])

I suggest changing the 192.0.128.1 to 192.0.2.1 (RFC 3330).


>C.5.  Service provided, several authentications done, different MTAs
>
>    A message that was relayed inbound by two different MTAs that conform
>    to this specification and applied multiple message authentication
>    checks:
>
>         Authentication-Results: auth-checker.example.com;
>                   sender-id=fail header.from=sender at example.com;
>                   dkim=pass (good signature) header.i=sender at example.com
>         Received: from mail-router.example.com
>                       (mail-router.example.com [192.0.2.1])
>                   by auth-checker.example.com (8.11.6/8.11.6)
>                       with ESMTP id i7PK0sH7021929;
>                   Fri, Feb 15 2002 17:19:22 -0800
>         Authentication-Results: mail-router.example.com;
>                   auth=pass (cram-md5) smtp.mail=sender at example.com;
>                   spf=fail smtp.mail=sender at example.com
>         Received: from dialup-1-2-3-4.example.net
>                       (dialup-1-2-3-4.example.net [192.0.128.1])

I suggest 192.0.2.200 here.

>                   by mail-router.example.com (8.11.6/8.11.6)
>                       with ESMTP id g1G0r1kA003489;
>                   Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:49:22 -0700
>         DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=gatsby; d=example.com;
>                   c=simple; q=dns;
>                   b=EToRSuvUfQVP3Bkz ... rTB0t0gYnBVCM=

To be in line with the DKIM RFC:

Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:49:22 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=example.com; s=gatsby;
         t=1188964191; x=1189050591; bh=sEuZGD/pSr7ANysbY3jtdaQ3Xv9xPQtS0m70
         Cuhw29g=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:
        Mime-Version:Content-Type;b=3ZAJzvgX4CaV7T4BLzKIwz66QyFF+/fKdq4GNM8Rwd
        Ub/2pcQ4GL0nAOCOSxFvCpnPdFW37B/aiv4wXLDRMJeiehratWdrbV3z70WQBKo1/dY5XI
        XQ3veVVJDRzkNSfQ9h2ILd34R/+8kMp403d1DHt5A6iDdjH1a13AoUnjEpA=

Regards,
-sm