[Adding issue number to the subject so we know what we're talking about.] Michael Thomas wrote: > > mtcc.com SSP: p=strict; > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > DKIM-Signature: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > Subject: phish is yummy > > If you're going to say that this signature qualifies as acceptable for > the above SSP record, then you have created a security hole that renders > SSP utterly useless. > > With p=strict and no other Originator Signature present, the message is indeed Suspicious. If the verifier is following the spec, it is always Suspicious.
You may have intended to present the example with p=all. In this case, the message may or may not be Suspicious, at the discretion of the verifier. This is what is meant by "Verifier acceptable". If the verifier knows something good about the signer (maybe it's ietf.org instead of hacker.com), it might decide that the message is not Suspicious. It's up to the verifier. So there are three cases: p=unknown => message is not Suspicious p=all => message is not Suspicious if an Originator Signature is present or another signature is present that is acceptable to the verifier p=strict => message is Suspicious unless an Originator Signature is present It might be argued that we should allow the verifier to make a decision based on other criteria in the p=all case. I see SSP as an adjunct to DKIM, and not other mechanisms, and the [not] Suspicious result as an input to later stages of filtering, but I'd be interested in the group's opinion on that. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
