Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 18:11:56 -0400 (EDT)

> When you refer to "an opinion" it sounds like you're referring to some sort 
> of reputation or other state information being maintained for each domain. 
> We have been trying to make DKIM free of such dependencies.

I entirely agree.  That's why I'm baffled at the desire to make the ADSP 
for foo.com also cover the different domains a.foo.com, b.foo.com, etc.

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 10:25:56 -0700

John Levine wrote:
>>> But I have to say, without any sort of domain blanket/coverage
>>> option, it seems like something is really missing here.
>>>       
>
> I'm seeing an implicit assumption that if someone has an opinion about
> mail from foo.com, they will have a similar opinion of mail from
> subdomains a.foo.com or a.b.foo.com, or a.b.c.foo.com.  I've been
> thinking about the mail I actually see, and I am having great
> difficulty finding even a small set of real life scenarios where that
> is true.
>   

When you refer to "an opinion" it sounds like you're referring to some 
sort of reputation or other state information being maintained for each 
domain.  We have been trying to make DKIM free of such dependencies.  I 
fully expect that reputations, opinions, and accreditations will often 
be used in the big-picture evaluation of email, but DKIM/ADSP should be 
an input to that process, not dependent on it.

-Jim

---

From: Jeff Macdonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 21:31:21 +0000

On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 07:58 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Good timing.  I had started thinking about the fact that DKIM's d= parameter 
> allows differentiating among (sub) domain names.
> 
> The premise is that these would have different reputations.  The last thing 
> one wants for that is a mechanism that groups them all together.

It would be nice that some BCP says d= should be treated as an opaque
value since I don't think the DKIM spec says such a thing.

-- 
:: Jeff Macdonald | Director of Messaging Technologies
:: e-Dialog | [email-masked]
:: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421
:: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118
:: www.e-dialog.com