Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 01:26:27 -, Jim Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hector Santos wrote: Unless I am missing something, this new separation and complexity provide no world wide standardization for general case, widely adopted expectations by the domain owners. While is it conceivab

Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:14:19 -, John Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Frank, you're (inadvertently?) bringing up exactly the kind of corner cases that I was trying to raise so that SSP implementations have the same behavior in their presence. It may be that all we practically need to do is

RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

Actually my customers usually have an IP that is within my domain. So if foo.com signs without an SSP statement, software could determine that joebob.com belongs to that IP range set that foo.com owns. In that case resposibility for the message is set. thanks, Bill -Original Message- F

RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

"Bill, from now on, if you have a spammer who gets an account, I am going to hold you and your entire ISP responsible... I know you did it, I have your signature right here." Would you care for a list of largish mail systems/ISP's that do that now? Bill Oxley Messaging Engineer Cox Communication

[ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages

Tony Finch wrote: >> As far as a "sender policy" is concerned, IPv4 1.2.3.4 can't >> have an SPF (or TXT) record, and therefore it's pointless to >> talk about it in RFC 4408. > Put them under in-addr.arpa next to the PTR record. The RIRs asked MARID to stay away from such ideas, and for the pu

Re: Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages

Paul Hoffman wrote: At 11:54 AM + 1/28/08, Charles Lindsey wrote: I think all you need, as Frank has pointed out, is a security consideration to the effect that "Verifiers should be aware that Bad Guys may attempt to subvert the intentions of SSP by submitting messages that are non-complian

Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > As far as a "sender policy" is concerned, IPv4 1.2.3.4 can't > have an SPF (or TXT) record, and therefore it's pointless to > talk about it in RFC 4408. Put them under in-addr.arpa next to the PTR record. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

On Monday 28 January 2008 10:18, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > I'd like to voice my support for Bill's position, notwithstanding #1360 > from a year ago. > > The reality is that many smaller domain owners rely on their ISP or some > other service provider to deal with the "under-the-hood" stuff

RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

I'd like to voice my support for Bill's position, notwithstanding #1360 from a year ago. The reality is that many smaller domain owners rely on their ISP or some other service provider to deal with the "under-the-hood" stuff. The cname suggestion is interesting but I haven't had time to think it

Re: Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages

At 11:54 AM + 1/28/08, Charles Lindsey wrote: I think all you need, as Frank has pointed out, is a security consideration to the effect that "Verifiers should be aware that Bad Guys may attempt to subvert the intentions of SSP by submitting messages that are non-compliant with RFC 2822 (for

Re: Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages

On Jan 28, 2008 1:30 PM, Hector Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > But beyond that, I have to say I'm a bit confounded by the concern for > > invalid messages shown here. There are a gazillion ways for messages > > to be invalid and attempting to account for them al

Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

On Monday 28 January 2008 11:41, Siegel, Ellen wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman > > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:32 AM > > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal f

Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

John Levine wrote: I will state that without the ability to handle 3rd party signing statements, SSP is useless to me. You know that hasn't been in any of the drafts, don't you? I have no idea what you are thinking John, but all the POLICY I-D drafts, starting with the original SSP-00, the

Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

On Jan 28, 2008 10:18 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bill and anybody else who is responsible for outbound mail knows that > they are going to get dinged - signed or not - if they don't address > issues caused by mail coming from their system. Something that we (us trenc

Re: Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages

Paul Hoffman wrote: > At 11:54 AM + 1/28/08, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> I think all you need, as Frank has pointed out, is a security >> consideration to the effect that >> >> "Verifiers should be aware that Bad Guys may attempt to subvert the >> intentions of SSP by submitting messages that ar

Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages

Frank Ellermann wrote: Hector Santos wrote: +1. A few days ago you said that more than one From address is irrelevant, and that "resending" old unsigned mails is as irrelevant as the whole concept of "resend", for your stated POV a "+1" to Ned's concerns is rather odd. I said no such thi

Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

On Monday 28 January 2008 15:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > OFFLIST, or not ... ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

OFFLIST, Checked with the man who would actually do the typing or script writing. It would be a major project as each domain 200k+ needs an entry pointing to the shared key. Lot of work at this point so we will wait for the spec to stabilize, vendors to build a ssp compliant checker then offer it a

[ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages

Hector Santos wrote: > +1. A few days ago you said that more than one From address is irrelevant, and that "resending" old unsigned mails is as irrelevant as the whole concept of "resend", for your stated POV a "+1" to Ned's concerns is rather odd. Frank _

RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:32 AM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP > > On Monday 28 January 2008 10:18, MH Mi

[ietf-dkim] Re: Re: from'less 2822 messages

Hector Santos wrote: >> A few days ago you said that more than one From address >> is irrelevant [...] > I said no such thing. What I had in mind was | The fact is, in most x822/non-x822 gateway systems, it is | incompatible as MOST online elect

Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

>Something that we (us trench warfare guys) have always had to do. But >passing off signing to a third party and not having to be in that >business (unless it's a value add ;-) and not having to sully the >reputation of the ISP as a whole is a far better solution in my eyes. Of course. The ISP do

Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: Bill and anybody else who is responsible for outbound mail knows that they are going to get dinged - signed or not - if they don't address issues caused by mail coming from their system. That's why DKIM was made flexible enough to let a variety of different do

Re: Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But beyond that, I have to say I'm a bit confounded by the concern for invalid messages shown here. There are a gazillion ways for messages > to be invalid and attempting to account for them all in our > specifications is a practical impossibility. And yet many members

Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

Scott Kitterman wrote: On Monday 28 January 2008 11:41, Siegel, Ellen wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-dkim- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:32 AM To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal

Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Re: from'less 2822 messages

Frank Ellermann wrote: What I had in mind was | The fact is, in most x822/non-x822 gateway systems, it is | incompatible as MOST online electronic mail systems has | only a 1 single author concept. Anyone who say there were | wrong for PRE-EXIS

Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Re: from'less 2822 messages

Hector Santos wrote: For a quick example, right now, using the Thunderbird MUA, it does not allow me to create a multiple from reply or new message. From a presentation standard, the TBird MUA presents only the > 1st address. I have not checked the Outlook MUA, but it will present all the

Re: Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages

Paul Hoffman wrote: At 11:54 AM + 1/28/08, Charles Lindsey wrote: I think all you need, as Frank has pointed out, is a security consideration to the effect that "Verifiers should be aware that Bad Guys may attempt to subvert the intentions of SSP by submitting messages that are non-complian

Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Re: from'less 2822 messages

> As a follow up, I did a quick test and the Outlook Express MUA will not > allow you to create Multiple From: authorships, but it will present > (display) received mail with Multiple From: lines as one From: header line. > > I have not checked the non-free commercial Outlook MUA version but I do

Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

On Jan 27, 2008, at 8:09 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: business customers who have no clue on how to manage DNS or do DKIM which rather slows adoption rates. Without this the only people doing DKIM will be the spammers (most of my currently signed mail is from spammers) and