Back to connected lands...
On Wed 24/Aug/2016 02:19:35 +0200 Brandon Long wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>>
Say A -> B -> C are the MTAs: [...]
>>>
>>> If your MTA is too small to use combinatorial trust assessments, then you
>>> are stuck with the same
etf
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC and weak signatures (again)
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Alessandro Vesely
mailto:ves...@tana.it>> wrote:
On Tue 23/Aug/2016 02:07:24 +0200 Brandon Long wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Alessandro Vesely
mailto:ves...@tana.it>> wrote:
Say
On Tue 23/Aug/2016 02:07:24 +0200 Brandon Long wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Say A -> B -> C are the MTAs: C sees a message where B is cited in the
To: or Cc: header fields. The message is ARC signed by B. B says A's
DKIM signature was good, but now it is
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Fri 19/Aug/2016 01:40:42 +0200 Brandon Long wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Alessandro Vesely
> wrote:
> >> On Sat 13/Aug/2016 17:22:52 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...] With DKIM, trust assessment is of the en
On Fri 19/Aug/2016 01:40:42 +0200 Brandon Long wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> On Sat 13/Aug/2016 17:22:52 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
>>>
>>> [...] With DKIM, trust assessment is of the entity doing the
>>> signing, typically the originating service. With ARC
