[Asrg] where the message originated (was: DKIM role?) (SM)

[Ian Eiloart]

--On 20 January 2009 10:19:29 -0500 Dotzero <dotzero at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Ian Eiloart <iane at sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> --On 20 January 2009 09:02:31 -0500 Dotzero <dotzero at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why aren't they supposed to do that?
>>
>> Well, because they haven't delivered the message yet, for example. They
>> might be about to forward it to another MTA. I know that Exim does most
>> of its header manipulation before delivery.
>>
>
> You are assuming facts not in evidence. They might also be about to be
> hit by an asteroid.
>
>>> How many MUAs are checking DKIM
>>> signatures at the moment?
>>
>> Probably none, but it's an obvious thing to want to do, isn't it? Anyway,
>> what's the point of delivering a message with DKIM signature that you've
>> already broken. At least, you could remove the signature.
>>
>
> Hmmm...I dunno..... maybe because the header they added says something
> like..... "DKIM check....PASS". that is, they are creating something
> that a human being can look at today and go....:"YEA!  my ISP or Mail
> Admin cares enough about me to check DKIM AND to let me know what the
> otucome of the check was." I could see some people going "Damn my ISP
> or Mail Admin for breaking something today because at some distant

Maybe not so distant:
<http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q1/009039.html>

This is a plea from Dave Crocker (author of rfc822) to take a Thunderbird 
extension that checks spf and dk, and add support for dkim.

> point in the future I or someone else might want to take advantage of
> that". While the former might be a small number in relation to all
> users, the latter is probably a number orders of magnitude smaller
> again.
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg at irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
x3148