Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:41:19 -0500

"bad signature --> DKIM Failure, local policy will set procedure"
thanks

Bill Oxley 
Messaging Engineer 
Cox Communications, Inc. 
Alpharetta GA 
404-847-6397 
[email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eric Allman
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 4:31 PM
To: Hector Santos
Cc: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec

--On February 16, 2006 1:26:10 AM -0500 Hector Santos 
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Whether you know it or not, you are making indirect technical and
> indirect local policy decisions with the assertion:
>
>     "bad signatures --> treat as if no signature was even present"

Yes, you are correct, which is why such wording is (supposed to be) 
no more than a SHOULD or an informative comment.  I do see that there 
are several MUSTs that really ought to be converted to SHOULDs for 
this to be true.  This is a major enough change that I think it 
should have further discussion; I'll ask Elliot to put it on the 
issues list.

> So just because you don't want to say anymore about Local Policies
> or how invalid DKIM signatures are possible, saying it should be
> treated as if as NO SIGNATURE is present, it is making a technical
> and local policy decision.
>
> I think it is a failed and flawed design concept and I have not been
> convinced that it is not.

Our (or at least My) logic is as follows:  in the short run, we know 
there are agents out there that modify the message in various ways. 
We might argue that they are wrong, but they do exist.  We expect or 
at least hope that DKIM will cause such agents to atrophy.  At some 
point there may be few enough of them that my advice will change, and 
we can consider a bad signature to be a strong sign of probably 
abuse.  But for now I'm a firm believer that to do so would cause far 
too many incorrect rejections.

That said, I do believe that this is verifier local policy, and I 
support your right to implement your code however you deem 
appropriate.

eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Mark Delany <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:02:07 +0000

> "bad signature --> DKIM Failure, local policy will set procedure"

The complexity here, I think Bill, is that the discussion is about an
email that has both a) a valid signature and b) at least one other
header line that looks like it might have once been a valid signature.

I think most here are saying that situation is out of scope and that
the verified signature is all that the spec should deal with... for
now.

Mark.