On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> I am having some difficulty following the scenario being described, so I
> will respond to what I think is being said.  My apologies if I
> misunderstood.

You understood pretty well.

> Example.com could wait a number of days for these messages to expire,

They can do this with a key rollover, but that will cause collateral
damage unless they wait a few days. There isn't any other support for
expiry.

> Example.com could decide to discontinue the use of the account used to
> send the marketing material.

> Had the RCPT TO hash idea been used, then example.com could also have an
> idea where not to send their next run of mail to help prevent future
> occurrences

Neither of these will stop Mr Vendetta's spam run.

> It could be that example.com has marked each message so they know where
> Mr. Vendetta obtained the initial copy, as this has been a problem in
> the past.

In effect they are using the revocation ID to do this.

> Now to protect their reputation, Example.com issues a revocation of the
> message being replayed by Mr. Vendetta.  This revocation may affect the
> delivery of some intended recipients, but the damage being done to their
> reputation warrants this strategy.

If the revocation ID is per-recipient there will be no collareral damage
affecting email to other recipients.

> This ignores the opportunistic identifications made possible by the
> revocation-identifier.

I would say "raises problems with" rather than "ignores" - my point was
that the assumptions behind your opportunistic identification heuristic
are not solid.

> However, example.com will have recommended the bindings of the
> mailbox-domain and the signing-domain which excludes the
> revocation-identifier, as they completely control the use of their
> domain's mail and want their mail accepted without causing any user
> prompts for approval.

So you'd need a more flavoursome SSP.

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://dotat.at/
BISCAY: WEST 5 OR 6 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. SHOWERS AT FIRST. MODERATE OR
GOOD.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org

Reply via email to