Scott, Perhaps an easier way, instead of you having to manage a DNS policy record, you offload that to your provider Policy.DKIM.foo.bar.com is a alias to dkim.provider.com who states the policy you request. When changing outbound email providers the new provider aliases policy.foo.bar.com to new.dkim.provider.com.
Now if a small domain is managing their own dns I imagine it would not be too demanding to use their own mta that can sign. Its not that difficult. The expertise to manage one makes he other rather trivial. Thanks, Bill Oxley Messaging Engineer Cox Communications, Inc. Alpharetta GA 404-847-6397 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:15:03 -0700 Jim Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Thursday 27 July 2006 18:31, Jon Callas wrote: >> >>>> If I use isp.example.com and they sign messages with my name and a >>>> key (theirs >>>> or mine, doesn't matter) and they also sign messages actually sent >>>> by joe >>>> spammer (another one of their customers) with my name and a key >>>> (again, >>>> theirs or mine), then it sucks to be me. That's the problem. >>>> >>> No, it doesn't suck to be you. The first letter of DKIM stands for >>> "Domain." It sucks to be example.com. >>> >>> >> To clarify, by me, I meant my domain. The problem is that in this type of >> scenario, there is no way to externally distinguish between mail actually >> sent by the vanity domain owner and mail sent by another customer of >> isp.example.com >> >I guess this means that isp.example.com is not worthy of your delegation >of signing authority to them, and you should shop elsewhere (find a more >reliable ISP, or sign your own messages). I think the ISPs will get it >right fairly quickly if they lose business as a result of not >authenticating mail submission properly (or otherwise fixing whatever >mechanism allowed Joe Spammer's message through). > Yes. What I want as a small domain owner is the ability to publish a policy record that say that for mail sent (for some definition of sent that we will probably have to argue about later) from my domain, the domain(s) authorized to sign are ... If/when I switch providers I can change the list. This is the simplest approach I can think of to put small domain owners on the same footing as domains running dedicates MTAs. I think from the perspective of the domain owner it is easier than managing public keys in DNS. For many small domains, signing themselves will be completely out of reach due to cost and lack of expertise. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
