On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Ned Freed ned.fr...@mrochek.com wrote:
I'm uneasy with an increase in version that isn't done in a complete
replacement for RFC6376. We're not just registering a couple of new
extension tags here. I would prefer that, if we do go decide to go down
this
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:20 PM, John R Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
I'm uneasy with an increase in version that isn't done in a complete
replacement for RFC6376.
The problem may be that we don't agree about what DKIM versions mean.
Here's what I would like them to mean:
[...]
Actually
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:17 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Here's a draft that puts the forwarding thing into DKIM, with the
dread version bump. It defines a general syntax for conditional
signatures, with the forwarding signature the only condition defined
so far. (Since you
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org
wrote:
How about a new tag, shf= (special header fields). Ignored by legacy
verifiers, as required; otherwise, contains a colon-separated list of
fields that get special handling by verifiers. Special handling
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 12:35 PM, ned+dm...@mrochek.com wrote:
Yes, you could do the equivalent of the version bump by changing the
name of the header, but I don't see the point.
If you're going to bump the version, you need to use the opportunity to
solve the more general underlying
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Dave Crocker dcroc...@gmail.com wrote:
The irony of your suggestion is that it requires having 'unupgraded'
software reliably use the version number, given that they haven't needed
to do that before either...
Section 6.1.1 of DKIM makes it a MUST that
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Elizabeth Zwicky zwi...@yahoo-inc.com
wrote:
On 6/12/14, 9:36 AM, Terry Zink tz...@exchange.microsoft.com wrote:
Franck Martin wrote:
I found that to build the override list for mailing list, I could log
DMARC rejected
emails that contained a List-Id
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org
wrote:
Can't both the version bump issue and the token signature issue be
ameliorated by incorporating the token signature in the DKIM-Delegate
field?
There's a protocol collision on the t= tag which would need to be
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
On 6/11/2014 4:58 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
One thing that is missing (and there's a placeholder for it) is
examples so you can see how it works. I'll make sure that's there for
-01.
Examples are good. Can we
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Vlatko Salaj vlatko.sa...@goodone.tk
wrote:
introducing new ML requirements has already been
characterised as not an ML solution. we have a few
of them already, and all much simpler than any YADAs.
The person on this list that actually represents a mailing
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org
wrote:
--
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org
wrote:
--
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
The person on this list that actually represents a mailing list so far
seems to like the idea, and has explained why to some extent. I think
that's much more valuable feedback.
More valuable than other feedback?
[...]
Hi Alessandro,
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote:
First, weak signatures which are not part of a chain should be ignored
by verifiers. An authentication chain can be defined as a set of
valid DKIM signatures and possibly an SPF authentication of
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
It is more easier, more feasible, more safe, to just reject/discard
the failed message (due to policy) at the backend and be done with it.
In your opinion.
It is the expert opinion of million of IETF-MAN-HOURS and
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Vlatko Salaj vlatko.sa...@goodone.tk
wrote:
That, sir, is false, both as to fact and as to causality.
The choice was among different varieties of pain, but
no amount of preparation would have made the pain avoidable.
that's a completely wrong assumption.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Vlatko Salaj vlatko.sa...@goodone.tk
wrote:
u ppl keep repeating that. however, u never say what IS the reason.
why don't u enlighten us, then?
Instead of assuming the reason and thus making false accusations, you
could've asked for the details first.
Colleagues,
Under the procedures of BCP 94, the list administrators have decided to
moderate the access of Vlatko Salaj to the mailing list, effective
immediately, until 10 July 2014. If Mr. Salaj posts anything, it will come
to us first, and we shall permit the message to be posted only if, in
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Vlatko Salaj vlatko.sa...@goodone.tk
wrote:
the story of my life... i'm always in minority, fighting for
survival.
It is entirely possible to fight for the minority without acting this way.
It's unfortunate that you feel like your lifetime of frustration
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
Fundamentally, any From-Corruption (good term to use) concept is bad. 30
years of mail software/product/hosting development across multiple networks
tells me so, it ethically burns inside me as wrong and I have strong
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:30 PM, J. Gomez jgo...@seryrich.com wrote:
True, but at the same time UX is something that every user can talk about,
as per se every user has experience with it.
Every time I hear that UI is a black art to be refined only by ultra
specialists, I shiver in fear,
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org
wrote:
[2] PGP can be worked around by placing the signed body in a separate
MIME part from the header and/or footer parts, and DKIM could at least
be adapted to decorated subjects using z= and footers using l=,
although
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:52 PM, J. Gomez jgo...@seryrich.com wrote:
MUAs SHOULD display to the end user, in UTF8 (and punycode), in a
non ambiguous font, the domain used for the assertion of the DMARC
policy, as well as the result of this assertion. A non ambiguous font
is a font where
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Vlatko Salaj vlatko.sa...@goodone.tk
wrote:
i need DMARC alignment rigidity gone. and some wise ppl to accept it.
well, we may lack that, i guess.
Mr. Salaj,
I recently sent a message to the list explaining that we require the
discussions on this list to be
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
There is a discussion about defining new codes for email authentication
failures in progress on apps-discuss which may interest people interested
in
this particular topic.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
The reason there is no IETF working group is that the people behind DMARC
were
unwilling to entertain participation in a working group that had a charter
that allowed for any chance of a change to the DMARC protocol.
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:25 AM, John Sweet sw...@secondlook.com wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Brandon Long bl...@google.com wrote:
I think many of the folks on this list don't use email the way that the
vast majority of people do.
The longer I work in email, the less I feel as
Colleagues,
The IETF has some written guidelines about management of and conduct on
mailing lists. In particular, the IETF's anti-harassment policy [1] and a
number of RFCs [2] [3] [4] [5] and IESG statements [6] [7] form the body of
the IETF's guidelines and procedures regarding mailing list
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Brandon Long bl...@google.com wrote:
There seem to be rather a lot, since it's a feature on most magazine
and newspaper web sites. Since you mentioned the WSJ, they use the
user's own address as the From: address (I just checked.) Some do the
hack you
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:28 PM, J. Gomez jgo...@seryrich.com wrote:
I don't believe TPA-Label hits the mark between solving a big hurt
and simple. IOW, it's too complicated for the amount of pain it
would resolve. Just my opinion, take care,
I'm of the same opinion as above.
In my
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Vlatko Salaj vlatko.sa...@goodone.tkwrote:
wrong conclusion, but i'm not gonna repeat myself.
one example should be enough to everybody.
I think if you want to get your ideas understood and thus adopted, you're
going to have to set your patience and
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Joseph Humphreys
jhumphr...@salesforce.com wrote:
The alignment domain-list solution seems trivial to me, and it works
without active support from the sender, which is nice.
How does it work without active support from the sender? Doesn't the
sender first
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.netwrote:
Well, let's see:
- DMARC.org defines the DMARC Base Specification with a link to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base/ - an IETF
document
- they published an information Internet draft,
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Vlatko Salaj vlatko.sa...@goodone.tkwrote:
however, waking those SRS ppl up may rly require some authority figure.
they are,
kind of, happy with their protocol, and its stability and usage. do try,
if u
wish. at least i will be grateful. :)=
It's kind of
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Vlatko Salaj vlatko.sa...@goodone.tkwrote:
It may not be that ATPS solves any of your problems, but the ATPS
community
(small as it is) can similarly say that SRS doesn't solve theirs.
well, i do not have any proposal on how to fix ATPS-induced DKIM
-02 of the base draft in progress. Regarding outstanding issues, I have
some things to bring to the list, starting here:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Andreas Schulze s...@andreasschulze.dewrote:
If nobody implemented http reporting yet
we should consider removing it from the spec...
Any
I don't see any action items here in terms of changes to the base draft.
Am I correct in that assessment? I'll assume yes; someone should speak up
if otherwise.
-MSK
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Steven M Jones s...@crash.com wrote:
Adding the [dmarc-ietf] list for spec considerations.
Any other input on this point? DMARC currently only considers the SPF
result if there is alignment between the return path and the From field.
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Raman Gupta rocketra...@gmail.com wrote:
I encountered a use case recently with an auto-generated email with
meaning
to ask: which cutoff? (More broadly, are the remaining steps documented
somewhere?)
- Roland
On 10/16/2013 08:56 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Hi all,
I'm planning to scrape this list for items that would be good to include
in a revision to the draft and post it prior
801 - 838 of 838 matches
Mail list logo
