[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ietf-dkim] Purpose and sequence forDKIM specification and deployment
- To: "ietf-mailsig" <ietf-mailsig@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Purpose and sequence forDKIM specification and deployment
- From: "Arvel Hathcock" <arvel@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:25:33 -0500
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=altn.com; s=c3po; l=463; t=1125339994; x=1125944794; i=arvel@altn.com; q=dns; h=DomainKey-Signature: Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Organization: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Reply-To; b=RKJCA3yQBYL/YgCobTYgeoB2ZIXHBytHWy7VQmTPcsCNXOCAQIfRFk/BSMXv9H5+ CNRhPdr2eInppRVuKtLFeRJZgZiDZ5oPv0SaoMrD4pYhghe6Yshl8Cc3lNKLgYJI ucDhmiYK1/hHZe7XeZoyQ1E0SSe8q7GuJ5je6O3rVWA=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=c3po; d=altn.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=dpb/Rb6tXeeDUnoBbc3CH7Juf0Tqbrzd2ry4iMwrtW9z+k3VGdn2JdbHKkqkIDkZ8jSUhPcPY69B5U/aYAg2bVUrxi/eoTcPOsS+Ln/uck3vqyfSNS11El8D3TkvR0ZsAeC+O5ji4r8MAJ3WK3Vu7K3RLaapownjPr+hIvMDEP0=;
- List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/>
- List-id: <ietf-mailsig.imc.org>
- List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mailsig-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
- Organization: Alt-N Technologies
- References: <431013C5.1040906@dcrocker.net> <43109069.1080808@kitterman.com><4310A22B.2000000@dcrocker.net> <4310AD27.10700@kitterman.com>
- Reply-to: arvel@xxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-ietf-mailsig@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Perhaps divide and conquor is the best approach. I'll volunteer to work
on the SSP group with others who think that's important. One group can
work out what threats DKIM-base deals with and the others what the
addition of DKIM-SSP can deal with. Then we can merge them.
I volunteer to work on DKIM-SSP also. It is critically important if the
prevention of unauthorized domain use in message headers is the issue. I've
posted up a couple of times already the specific problems SSP deals with.
We could offer those as input into the threat analysis.
--
Arvel