On Aug 24, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 09:45:20AM -0400, Wietse Venema allegedly wrote:
>> Hector Santos:
>>> IMO, it is these statements that continues to raise confusion and
>>> raise the barrier of industry wide adoption that includes the general
>>> population of MTA developers and operators from tiny to small to even
>>> large.
>>
>> As a part-time MTA developer I am not confused. The DKIM signature
>> provides a simple piece of trace information ("I handled this mail")
>> that is cryptographically bound to some header and body content.
>
> Yes. And that the obverse is possible: "I didn't handle this mail".
I don't see how DKIM can provide the obverse - the obvious way
is for a sender to assert that all their mail has a DKIM signature,
but that fails when the DKIM signature breaks in transit. Is there
a clever trick I'm missing?
> As Jon Callas is fond of saying, you know a protocol is a success when
> it's abused in ways you never thought possible. The bi-laterals that
> others have discussed are a small example of this.
>
> Jon got it right: we don't need to know all of what is possible with
> so general a component as DKIM.
>
> My personal motivation, going back some seven years now, was about
> tools for putting credibility (back) into the email system. Clearly
> this is far from the only motivation across the population of DKIM
> developers. Varying motives don't necessarily mean varying tools.
DKIM allows you to attach a token to an email. That's such a generally
useful thing it's no surprise people are finding a range of uses
for it.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
