Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Terry Zink wrote: > Large email receivers forward tons of email. This proposal causes email > from DMARC-passing messages to be incapable of forwarding. As a large email > receiver who gets tons of complaints about breakage of DKIM

Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts

Thanks, that's what I thought. Large email receivers forward tons of email. This proposal causes email from DMARC-passing messages to be incapable of forwarding. As a large email receiver who gets tons of complaints about breakage of DKIM signatures on forwarded messages which causes DMARC

Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts

On 11/16/2016 10:50 AM, Terry Zink wrote: This may be a dumb question, but if a DKIM-signature includes the original recipient, then wouldn’t that break the DKIM signature if the original MTA forwards it to another receiver even if they don’t modify any parts of the message? the proposal is

Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts

This may be a dumb question, but if a DKIM-signature includes the original recipient, then wouldn’t that break the DKIM signature if the original MTA forwards it to another receiver even if they don’t modify any parts of the message? How would people forward their email? From: dmarc

Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts

There's been a lot of great feedback here. I just cranked out an update based on the discussion so far: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-kucherawy-dkim-rcpts-01 I forgot to update the title of Section 3, but other than that I think I captured what's been discussed. Please let me know

Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Vladimir Dubrovin wrote: > 15.11.2016 2:07, Murray S. Kucherawy пишет: > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:36 PM, wrote: > >> Let's break this down. If we're going to include recipients in the DKIM >> signature, it seems

Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts

15.11.2016 2:07, Murray S. Kucherawy пишет: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:36 PM, > wrote: > > Let's break this down. If we're going to include recipients in the > DKIM > signature, it seems we have at least three key design