For any set of aliases that are manually configured, publishing a key, or
CNAME for each of those is of the same order of complexity as establishing
the alias itself.

When I try to validate the sig for [email protected] I will look that up.

Unless your user agent generates a fuzzy match variant of your from:
address outbound with each email, I am not sure that the scaling problem is.

I still fail to see what inbound fuzzy match of local parts has to do with
the problem.

dougm

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Nico Williams <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Doug Montgomery <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > That problem seems to be O(1).  As you noted, I did it once, when I
> created
> > the address.   My mail provider may choose to support all kinds of
> inbound
> > variants (UID@domain) that I don't even know about.
> >
> > I transmit, document, and exchange exactly 1 version of my address.   I
> > would like to publish a key for [email protected].   This seems to
> scale
> > quite well.
>
> You do.
>
> Others use aliases for all sorts of reasons.  E.g., joe+dane (some
> joe's address for posting to this list, say).
>
> > I consider it undesirable to publish keys for whatever variants my
> provider
> > chooses to support for their own reasons.  Tomorrow they might decide
> (for
> > their own reasons) to equate other transformations of the string.
>
> If you were the sort who likes to use a different sender address
> (typically an alias of your primary address) for each list, then you
> would consider it desirable.
>
> > Google never has to figure out the problem you propose.  I set my from:
> > address.  I would like to publish a key for that.  Users trying to
> validate
> > my signed email will look up the from address I used.  If their user
> agent
> > sees [email protected] and chooses to lookup
> [email protected]
> > .... well, I am more than happy to have that validation fail.
>
> Google does too have to figure out how to canonicalize your aliases:
> because they chose to apply a fuzzy matching rule of their own design.
> Google did that because they could.
>
> Nico
> --
>



-- 
DougM at Work
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane

Reply via email to