Subject: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:23:53 +0000

issue #1365 calls for eliminating requirement
6.3.2 which says:

"   [PROVISIONAL] The Protocol MUST be able to publish a Practice
         which is indicative that domain doesn't send mail."

If you want to eliminate that requirement say: +1
If you want to keep that requirement say: -1

Remember: wordsmithing is for later.

Stephen.

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

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:02:06 -0800

> If you want to keep that requirement say: -1

-1. Keep.

This feature might help curtail a type of DDoS attack for those that  
do not use DKIM and want to prevent traffic generated by spoofed  
random keys selectors.  Of course the attacker might attempt to use  
random sub-domains for the email-address, but bogus email-address  
domains would be easier to prevent.  Keys can and will be pointing  
anywhere without any expectation that key selectors have a direct  
relationship with an email-address domain.  In other words, key are  
always stored in some random location.  Sender policy would not.

-Doug

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:33:31 -0500

-1 keep, I'm with Doug on this

Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications
404-847-6397

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Douglas Otis
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 6:02 PM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: ietf-dkim
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no

-1. Keep.

-Doug

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:14:35 -0500

-1 == KEEP REQUIREMENT

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:44:41 -0500

>         which is indicative that domain doesn't send mail."
I  want to eliminate that requirement: +1

Scott K

---

From: Arvel Hathcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0600

+1 - ditch this fluff.

I have had some sympathy for this in the past but now I have to ask: Are 
we creating "Sender *SIGNING* Practices" or "Sender Practices In 
General"?  Besides, there are already at least two other ways with more 
traction to achieve this particular goal.

Arvel

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:15:53 -0800

>If you want to keep that requirement say: -1

+1, eliminate that requirement.

Regards,
-sm