Re: one can re-sign without a permission to re-sign header

On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:42 AM, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't see any replay protection in here at all. Nothing that says to
>> keep the signature expiration relatively short, and nothing which a mailing
>> list recipient could not subsequently use to send spam. The first issue
>> just needs a mention. It's the second issue that needs to be addressed IMO:
>>
>
> Yeah, that occurred to me about five minutes after I posted it.  Here's a
> tweaked version where the mf tag is now mf=list.domain, with handwaving
> about how a may-forward signature doesn't count unless there's also a
> signature from the list domain.  Given lengthy discussions about how little
> abuse comes from real mailing lists, that'd probably be adequate.
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-may-forward/


If we want to pursue a may-forward approach, this looks like a good
starting point to me.


> I wouldn't bother with what you've proposed.
>

Neither would I.  Whitelisting solves this problem far better.
>

If we're discarding may-forward, then it seems to me we might be better off
talking about a whitelist publish/query mechanism that deserves
standardization here.  Does VBR or a slight modification to it suffice, or
do we want something else?

-MSK

_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822