Hector, my life is short, and this group already takes up more of it than
my wife wants. If you are a subject matter expert on all of those RFCs,
we need you to summarize the relevant pieces for those of us who are not.
But you imply that if I read all of those RFCs, I would see that your
On Tue 16/May/2023 04:32:21 +0200 Hector Santos wrote:
I find it technically unfeasible and non-logical to support a high overhead,
complex ARC concept that has no promise of any solution for a DKIM Policy model
we have been seeking since 2005.
The concept evolved from the need to export
Wei,
Have you studied the past R and functional specifications,
architectural surrounding SPF and DKIM leading up to DMARC?
RFC5598 Internet Mail Architecture
RFC5322 Internet Message Format
RFC5321 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
RFC4405 SUBMITTER SMTP Service Extension
That's a good point around ARC as that's what it was meant to do. And that got
me thinking that it might be helpful to systematically compare the
different proposed approaches and their pros and cons. The next approach
would be to consider the general approach of the reversible transform idea
It is not a commitment at this time. That said, we are interested in
solving this problem and welcome collaboratively figuring out the right way
to do this.
It seems to me that ARC provides the useful parts of third party
signatures and, while rather complicated, has the benefit of actually
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 10:21 AM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 10:06 AM John Levine wrote:
>
>> No large provider has ever expressed any interest in either so I cannot
>> see any reason to spend more time on either one.
>>
>
> I believe Wei has expressed interest in the
On Tue 02/May/2023 19:21:13 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 10:06 AM John Levine wrote:
No large provider has ever expressed any interest in either so I cannot
see any reason to spend more time on either one.
I believe Wei has expressed interest in the transforms
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 10:06 AM John Levine wrote:
> No large provider has ever expressed any interest in either so I cannot
> see any reason to spend more time on either one.
>
I believe Wei has expressed interest in the transforms stuff, but I don't
recall whether that was a commitment to
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
>And I think the conditional signatures ideas suffer from the same two
>issues I identified above.
It's not quite as bad because with conditional signatures you can
decide for each message if any third party signatures are OK. That
mostly solves the
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:23 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> Some thoughts about the third party signature discussion that happened
> over the last couple of weeks while I was away:
>
> I wrote ATPS as an experiment in 2012. At the time we were still
> finishing DKIM (RFC 6376 was only five
Some thoughts about the third party signature discussion that happened over
the last couple of weeks while I was away:
I wrote ATPS as an experiment in 2012. At the time we were still finishing
DKIM (RFC 6376 was only five months earlier), and still talking about
whether a third party signing
11 matches
Mail list logo
