Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: > On 7/11/18 6:23 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Jim Fenton > wrote: > >> >> So essentially we're creating a bunch of header bloat (creating duplicate >> header fields with different names where that could be a

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

On 7/11/18 6:23 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Jim Fenton > wrote: So essentially we're creating a bunch of header bloat (creating duplicate header fields with different names where that could be avoided) because there ar

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Any outstanding issues on 7601bis?

On July 12, 2018 12:20:39 AM UTC, John Levine wrote: >In article <2940516.WEBi8fTYBz@kitterma-e6430> you write: >>Is the list of EAI affected components of the field complete? As an >example, >>sometimes email addresses are used for SMTP Auth user IDs (or >sometimes just >>the local part).

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >On 7/11/18 5:15 PM, Brandon Long wrote: >So essentially we're creating a bunch of header bloat (creating >duplicate header fields with different names where that could be >avoided) because there are some MTAs that did not follow the >specifications before.

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: > > So essentially we're creating a bunch of header bloat (creating duplicate > header fields with different names where that could be avoided) because > there are some MTAs that did not follow the specifications before. That > makes me unhappy,

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

On 7/11/18 5:15 PM, Brandon Long wrote: DKIM-Signatures are also sometimes removed from messages (mailing lists often do this), and there are also MTAs which incorrectly make assumptions about how DKIM-Signature failure means (the RFC says a failed DKIM-Signature should be treated as if it's no

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Any outstanding issues on 7601bis?

In article <2940516.WEBi8fTYBz@kitterma-e6430> you write: >Is the list of EAI affected components of the field complete? As an example, >sometimes email addresses are used for SMTP Auth user IDs (or sometimes just >the local part). I don't know a lot about EAI, but it seems to me that most >an

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:24 PM Jim Fenton wrote: > On 7/10/18 12:43 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > RFC7601 doesn't require or encourage deletion of A-R fields in general. > (The strongest word is "could".) If it's valid and possibly useful > downstream, you can certainly keep it. It only s

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Any outstanding issues on 7601bis?

On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 03:09:01 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > or can we WGLC it? > > -MSK Not that it needs to be fixed before WGLC, but should Sender ID be listed as historic now? Is the list of EAI affected components of the field complete? As an example, sometimes email addresse

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Any outstanding issues on 7601bis?

+1 On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 18:11 Seth Blank wrote: > Nope. Earlier comments of mine have been addressed. I think it’s ready for > WGLC. > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 15:09 Murray S. Kucherawy > wrote: > >> ...or can we WGLC it? >> >> -MSK >> ___ >> dmarc

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Any outstanding issues on 7601bis?

Nope. Earlier comments of mine have been addressed. I think it’s ready for WGLC. On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 15:09 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > ...or can we WGLC it? > > -MSK > ___ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listin

[dmarc-ietf] Any outstanding issues on 7601bis?

or can we WGLC it? -MSK ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

On 7/11/18 10:28 AM, Seth Blank wrote: But to circle back to Jim's original question about the value of the ARC Seal, this has also been discussed at length in this working group, and has probably been one of the largest technical points of contention: i.e. how much value does it really add,

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > I think that there is a bit of a difference here and terminology is not > being used precisely. The "seal" (AS) is not invalidated when someone > changes the content. The "signature" (AMS) is. The "seal" (aka AS) remains > valid as long

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Martijn van der Lee < > martijn=40dmarcanalyzer@dmarc.ietf.org > > wrote: > >> In 5.1.1. (Header Fields To Include In ARC-Seal Signatures) he text >> states to include the ARC Set currently being ad

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Martijn van der Lee < > martijn=40dmarcanalyzer@dmarc.ietf.org > > wrote: > >> In 5.1.1. (Header Fields To Include In ARC-Seal Signatures) he text >> states to include the ARC Set currently being ad

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Martijn van der Lee < martijn=40dmarcanalyzer@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > In 5.1.1. (Header Fields To Include In ARC-Seal Signatures) he text states > to include the ARC Set currently being added. > However, the signature cannot include the current ARC-Seal header

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

Hi all, In 5.1.1. (Header Fields To Include In ARC-Seal Signatures) he text states to include the ARC Set currently being added. However, the signature cannot include the current ARC-Seal header, as it's full contents are not yet known at the time (for obvious reasons). Should the current ARC-Seal

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:48 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Jim Fenton > wrote: > >> On 7/10/18 12:43 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> >> >> AMS is basically the same as DKIM-Signature, and so it covers body >> modifications. When you verify the seal, you mu