Thanks Alessandro I'll take a look On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 02/Dec/11 01:00, [email protected] wrote: > > Filename : draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-05.txt > > I still have some problems with the example. It seems that ".com" and > ".net" were swapped at least in one place, and in any case it is > difficult to avoid confusion with them. Perhaps it's me, but wouldn't > it be possible to replace the domain names (tentatively) like so? > > s/example.com/originator.example/ > s/example.net/verifier-reporter.example/ > > Specific nits in the text/rfc822-headers (3rd) part are as follows: > > * There is no "To:" header field, > > * the topmost Received has ".com" and ".net" swapped, > > * there are more than three minutes between internal servers > handling, and they are inconsistent with the Date field. I'd > change those lines with, say, > > Received: from anexample.example.com ([192.0.2.1]) > by mta1011.mail.tp2.example.net with ESMTP > Sat, 08 Oct 2011 04:16:24 -0700 (PDT) > Received: from internal-client-001.example.com > by mail.example.com (an alias for anexample) > with SMTP id o3F3BwdY028431; > Sat, 08 Oct 2011 04:16:23 -0700 (PDT) > Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 09:16:23 -0400 (EDT) > > * the DKIM-Signature has d=example.net rather than d=example.com, and > > * the A-R field misses a semicolon at the end of the first line while > the second line conflates two methods. I'd rewrite it taking three > lines, e.g. > > Authentication-Results: mta1011.mail.tp2.example.net; > spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=anexample.example.com; > dkim=fail (bodyhash) header.d=examle.com; > > For the second part, this should instead be > > Authentication-Results: mta1011.mail.tp2.example.net; > dkim=fail (bodyhash) header.d=examle.com; > > Also in the second part, where would Reported-URI be derived from? > > Then, the report would be sent from the verifier/reporter back to > example.com. Instead, the outermost "Received:" field is "from > mail.example.com by mx.example.net". The IP address 192.0.2.1 doesn't > seem to belong here. Do we need an outermost Received field? If the > intent is to exemplify a generated but not yet sent report, it can be > omitted as well as Return-Path and Authentication-Results. If not, > I'd also add a DKIM-Signature. > > One more nit, there is an unbalanced parenthesis in the last line of > the second paragraph of Section 3.2.4 > > DKIM-Canonicalized-Body: A base64 encoding of the canonicalized body > of the message as generated by the verifier. The encoded content > MUST be limited to those bytes that contribute to the DKIM body > hash (i.e., the value of the "l=" tag; see Section 3.7 of [DKIM]. > _______________________________________________ > marf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf > -- Hilda L Fontana VP, Technology eCert, Inc. One Market Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 p: 626.676.8852 f: 415.651.8932 **eCert - Trust the MessageTM *www.ecertsystems.com* <http://www.ecertsystems.com/> * * ---------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments and any copies of such printouts. Thank you for your cooperation. <http://www.ecertsystems.com/>
_______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
