On 6/22/11 11:14 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
The bottom line about Doug's note is that the working group extensively
considered the basic issue of multiple From: header fields and Doug is
raising nothing new about the topic.
A quick summary of the technical point at the core of Doug's
On Jul 13, 2009, at 7:58 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Why on Earth would someone use Visual Basic within Word to write a
utility to convert Microsoft Word ***XML*** documents to an IETF-
acceptable format, when there are much better tools for processing
XML?
For a third-party application to
On Jun 3, 2009, at 12:23 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
Yes, security of DNSSEC is totally hop by hop.
Thus, you imply a definition of hop by hop along digital signature
relationships. Indeed, DNSSEC security is limited to the weakest
link along the chain from the bottom to the top of the
On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
The problem is that the accuracy and integrity of DNSSEC is not
cryptographically, but socially secure.
DNS over UDP is prone to port/transaction-id guessing, where
cryptography could play a protective role. The risk of these values
On May 26, 2009, at 8:07 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
'Internet Mail Architecture' draft-crocker-email-arch as a
Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a concern about the intended publication
status of this document and wishes to confirm the community's
preferences.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-04
Errata:
Original Text:
,---
The tendency is to have the MUA highlight the address associated with
this *signing identity* in some way, in an attempt to show the user
the address from which the mail was sent.
'---
Corrected Text:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 10:32:28AM -0800, Doug Otis wrote:
Note that there has been work in DNSOP suggesting that rejecting
on the failure of reverse DNS lookup is not always a good idea.
Agreed.
Just to be clear: I am not sure I agree
On Feb 23, 2009, at 12:32 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:11:26 -0800, Doug Otis wrote:
This appeal boils down to someone might misuse it so don't
standardize it. Is there any standard to which someone couldn't
have made a similar objection?
The appeal
On Feb 20, 2009, at 1:44 AM, John Levine wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/appeal-otis-2009-02-16.txt
This appeal boils down to someone might misuse it so don't
standardize it. Is there any standard to which someone couldn't
have made a similar objection?
The appeal is in
On Jan 10, 2009, at 12:31 AM, SM wrote:
At 15:44 09-01-2009, Douglas Otis wrote:
[...]
This leaves the issue of authentication itself clearly in the rough.
Section 1.5.2 of the draft explains why Sender-ID and SFP is
supported by this header field. In a nutshell, it's about using a
On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:18 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
John Levine wrote:
As I said a few messages up in this string, although the structure
of IPv4 DNSxLs has long since been cast in concrete, IPv6 DNSxLs
aren't that mature yet and one of my goals was to make them
interoperate equally well
On Nov 7, 2008, at 3:17 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 10:59:46AM -0800,
The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 26 lines which
said:
- 'DNS Blacklists and Whitelists '
draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07.txt as a Proposed Standard
Well, it is certainly very
On Oct 28, 2008, at 10:12 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
One could, of course, make many of the same observations about
replacing SMTP and/or today's Internet mail formats with some newly-
invented and improved system, replacing HTTP with something more
elegantly designed based on what we
On Oct 22, 2008, at 7:50 AM, Tim Polk wrote:
Stephen,
I will concede that most of the excitement about IBE and other Weil
Pairing based cryptography has been in the research community.
However, the technology has matured and products are slowly
emerging. (I am also loath to write off
On Oct 9, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
On Oct 9, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT chair wrote:
At 19:17 02/10/2008, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
I believe this draft is insufficient:
4.1: Frankly speaking, with all the mechanisms out there, you
must assume that an
15 matches
Mail list logo
