Re: Aptness of DKIM for MLs
Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> Fri, 09 May 2014 12:23:24 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rfc822 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi SM, On Thu 08/May/2014 19:59:19 +0200 S Moonesamy wrote: > At 03:06 07-05-2014, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> to "standardize" its syntax.[3] It seems to me that eliminating some >> of such gratuitous changes is the solution to DMARC-for-MLs which >> minimizes the alterations in MLM software. Are you sure it won't >> work? > > This mailing list breaks the DKIM Signature. No, it doesn't. It broke elandsys' signature, but check tana's signature on this message. (I send this to ietf-822 only, to avoid any confusion.) So it seems I could publish a strict DMARC policy right now, and cause minimal disruptions. However, some verifiers (NetEase) consider tana's h= inadequate, see "objection" below. > Gratuitous changes to a mailing list message is a matter of > opinion. Well, not exactly. For corrections, section 6.4 of RFC 5321 is rather clear that submission servers MAY, while intermediate relays MUST NOT, apply certain changes. So the range where opinions may vary is whether an MLM is to be considered akin to submission servers or relays. By /gratuitous/ changes, such as adding/removing double quote marks, I mean unnecessary embellishments that were already disputable before DKIM took root. > I suggest reading the past discussions first if you are interested > in trying to make it work. Yes, much of this discussion was recited at the time of ADSP, for example http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2010q3/013829.html The most relevant objection to weak signatures is why would domains so concerned about security as to publish a strong policy weaken their DKIM signatures? A solution is to do so for ML messages only. To recap, assume a domain has a DB of (user, mailing list) pairs which defines ML traffic. Messages to ML are then sent in separate SMTP transactions and weakly signed. MLMs sign those messages in turn, using strong signatures. Verifiers derive the validity of MLM domains by comparing d= against To: or Cc: mailboxes. Besides minor refinements, the major bar is to build that DB. I proposed to do it manually for starting, and then find out how to automate its maintenance. Ale _______________________________________________ ietf-822 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822