>> An interesting side effect is that it would also suppress bounce messages
>> from mailing lists, even if they resigned. I'm not sure if this is a
>> feature or a bug.
>So, yeah, if the SSP associated with the MailFrom says
>"rfc2821.MailFrom" must match a DKIM signature, or somesuch, then a
>
John Levine wrote:
An interesting side effect is that it would also suppress bounce messages
from mailing lists, even if they resigned. I'm not sure if this is a
feature or a bug.
So, yeah, if the SSP associated with the MailFrom says
"rfc2821.MailFrom" must match a DKIM signature, or somes
An offline discussion with Steve Atkins has been helpful in highlighting a two
distinctions in function and implementation design that the group should
consider. He pressed quite hard, for some of what follows, but I won't claim
that I'm speaking on his behalf; I just want to make sure it's cle
Dave Crocker wrote:
1. Internal vs. External
The difference between recruiting the recipient to enforce
origin-side policies concerning origin-side participants, versus
enabling the recipient to detect misbehaviors by actors external to
the origin-side.
I think a simple and appropri
Of possible interest to the DKIM community:
Original Message
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-wallace-ta-mgmt-problem-statement-01.txt
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:15:02 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A New Internet-Draft is available fr
So, as someone very interested in the trust anchor work, I don't want
to discourage anyone here from following it, but I think it is
completely unrelated to DKIM. DKIM, of course, doesn't need trust
anchors, and the TAM work is all about trust anchors. (Well, there is
some crossover because one
Dave Crocker wrote:
Of possible interest to the DKIM community:
To the community, quite possibly. But I don't see much
to do with the DKIM protocol, as currently spec'd. If,
however, someone started using X.509 certs, XKMS or
DNSSEC to support DKIM, then yes, it'd start to be
relevant. Or am
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Dave Crocker wrote:
Of possible interest to the DKIM community:
To the community, quite possibly. But I don't see much
to do with the DKIM protocol, as currently spec'd. If,
however, someone started using X.509 certs, XKMS or
DNSSEC to support DKIM, then yes, it'd st
On Jul 8, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
An offline discussion with Steve Atkins has been helpful in
highlighting a two distinctions in function and implementation
design that the group should consider. He pressed quite hard, for
some of what follows, but I won't claim that I'm sp
On Jul 8, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
Steve pointed out to me that a basic challenge, here, is that
DKIM does not define a signature as meaning that the signer is
asserting the truthfulness of any particular bit of information in
the message. That's the inherent difference b
On Jul 8, 2007, at 4:46 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Jul 8, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
Steve pointed out to me that a basic challenge, here, is that
DKIM does not define a signature as meaning that the signer is
asserting the truthfulness of any particular bit of information
11 matches
Mail list logo
