Scott Kitterman wrote in
<2920460.qdh4J8JMRY@localhost>:
|On Sunday, April 2, 2023 4:56:16 PM EDT Wei Chuang wrote:
|> A -03 draft is available at
|> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chuang-dkim-replay-problem-03.html.
|
|Thanks. While I haven't given it a thorough review, based on a
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 4:56:16 PM EDT Wei Chuang wrote:
> A -03 draft is available at
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chuang-dkim-replay-problem-03.html.
Thanks. While I haven't given it a thorough review, based on a quick read, I
think this should serve as the basis for further work
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 12:02 PM Hector Santos wrote:
> +1.
>
> ARC is not a solution, but it is a good part of the problem. It’s not hard
> to see how our fall back to defocusing, the de-emphasis of the DKIM Policy
> Model in lieu of Reputation Modeling creating this issue.
>
ARC compounds the
A -03 draft is available at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chuang-dkim-replay-problem-03.html.
On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 3:18 AM Laura Atkins
wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Mar 2023, at 16:38, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> Informal comments only here. I know a merger with Dave's draft is in
>
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:38 AM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> Informal comments only here. I know a merger with Dave's draft is in
> progress, so some of these may not apply by the time you're done.
>
> Section 1.1:
>
> It feels a little presumptuous to assume any DKIM receiver has also built
>
> On 24 Mar 2023, at 16:38, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> Informal comments only here. I know a merger with Dave's draft is in
> progress, so some of these may not apply by the time you're done.
>
> Section 1.1:
>
> It feels a little presumptuous to assume any DKIM receiver has also built
> On 24 Mar 2023, at 18:14, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
>
> On March 24, 2023 5:42:41 PM UTC, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>> On 3/24/23 10:22 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Fine with me, it's far from a showstopper overall. I just made the
>>> suggestion.
>>>
>> This wg should
+1.
ARC is not a solution, but it is a good part of the problem. It’s not hard to
see how our fall back to defocusing, the de-emphasis of the DKIM Policy Model
in lieu of Reputation Modeling creating this issue.
Every issue we have today is nearly 100% because of the lob-sided efforts to
On March 24, 2023 5:42:41 PM UTC, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>On 3/24/23 10:22 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Fine with me, it's far from a showstopper overall. I just made the
>> suggestion.
>>
>This wg should be concerned with DKIM problems, not other wg problems and
>especially
On 3/24/23 10:22 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Fine with me, it's far from a showstopper overall. I just made the
suggestion.
This wg should be concerned with DKIM problems, not other wg problems
and especially for experimental rfc's of dubious value and complete
mysteries as to what
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:59 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 3/24/2023 9:38 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > I think I concur with the suggestion that wa should drop discussion of
> > ARC. This WG, or the DMARC WG, can develop an update to ARC based on
> > the outcome here if the community
Murray,
I'll skip over comments that I think will be resolved as Wei
incorporates my text or that I don't have a useful comment on...
On 3/24/2023 9:38 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I think I concur with the suggestion that wa should drop discussion of
ARC. This WG, or the DMARC WG, can
Informal comments only here. I know a merger with Dave's draft is in
progress, so some of these may not apply by the time you're done.
Section 1.1:
It feels a little presumptuous to assume any DKIM receiver has also built
out a reputation system, or has access to one. I guess it might depend
13 matches
Mail list logo
