Skip to main content

Domain Keys Identified Mail
charter-ietf-dkim-04-04

The information below is for an older proposed charter
Document Proposed charter Domain Keys Identified Mail WG (dkim) Snapshot
Title Domain Keys Identified Mail
Last updated 2023-01-05
State Start Chartering/Rechartering (Internal Steering Group/IAB Review)
WG State Proposed
IESG Responsible AD Murray Kucherawy
Charter edit AD Murray Kucherawy
Send notices to (None)

charter-ietf-dkim-04-04

Domain Keys Identified Mail (DKIM, RFC 6376) defines a method for
using a digital signature to associate a domain identity with an email
message using an appropriate cryptographic authentication mechanism, and
to assure receiving domains that the message has not been altered since the
signature was created. Receiving systems can use this information as
part of their message-handling decision. This can help reduce spam,
phishing, and other unwanted or malicious email.

A DKIM-signed message can be re-posted, to additional recipients, in a
fashion that retains the original signature. With an author and a recipient
collaborating, this can "replay" the message, using the original signer's
reputation to propagate email with problematic content -- spam, phishing,
and the like.

Generally, the technical characteristics of this form of abuse match those of
legitimate mail, making its detection or prevention challenging. Timestamps
and carefully-tailored message signing conventions are appealing approaches
to replay mitigation. Each has significant limitations.

The DKIM working group will first develop a clear problem statement, which it may
choose to publish. Then, it will produce one or more technical specifications that
propose replay-resistant mechanisms. The working group will prefer solutions compatible
with DKIM's broad deployment, and there will be an expectation that these solutions will have been through implementation and interoperability testing before publication.

If the working group decides that is unable to identify a consensus technical solution to this problem space, it may instead publish a report describing the problem and summarizing the reasons that none of the proposed approaches are acceptable.

Finally, the working group may produce documents that update operational advice to reflect modern considerations, especially with respect to the replay problem described above. This should be done only if there is a consensus opinion that such advice would be based on experience rather than theory.

Current proposals include the following drafts:

- draft-bradshaw-envelope-validation-extension-dkim
- draft-chuang-dkim-replay-problem
 - draft-chuang-replay-resistant-arc
 - draft-gondwana-email-mailpath
 - draft-kucherawy-dkim-anti-replay

The working group may adopt or ignore these as it sees fit.