Will somebody please tell the editor that this still violates our charter
since reputation is out of scope?
Thank you.
Mike
Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Jim Fenton wrote:
>> I do have a problem with the last paragraph:
>>
>>>For signers and assessors that have been using the i= tag for
>>>
Hi,
Sorry for the spam. It was not done intentionally.
Unknowingly, a request was sent to the groups. Will make sure that nothing
goes wrong in future.
Thanks,
Deiva Shanmugam
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Al Iverson wrote:
> Deiva,
>
> Why are you sending Facebook photo requests to th
Jim Fenton wrote:
> I do have a problem with the last paragraph:
>
>>For signers and assessors that have been using the i= tag for
>> reputation assessment a software change to using the d= tag is
>> intended.
>>
>>
> and some of the text in the preceding paragraph be
Douglas Otis wrote:
> Perhaps some providers are upset that some DKIM features allow
> original messages to be isolated from injected ads, for example. As it
> happens, some of these ads have caused security breaches due to
> various cross-site scripting and iFRAME related issues. It seems the
pasi.ero...@nokia.com wrote:
> Jim Fenton wrote:
>
>
>> Dave has proposed a change to the rfc4871-errata draft in response to a
>> concern from the IESG. Can you clarify what concern the IESG has this
>> is attempting to address? I'll repeat my original question below since
>> you may have mis
There’s a draft proposal out to add a new tag to keys for doing this. See
draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting.
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On
Behalf Of Franck Martin
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 6:04 AM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-d
On Jun 13, 2009, at 4:51 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> bill.ox...@cox.com wrote:
>> Okay, I would like to keep what we have, removing pieces is not a
>> good idea, people don't have to use the tags if they don't want to
>> and we MAY have a need for them in the future.
>
> There is an infinite arr
Comments inline
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of hector
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 7:38 AM
> To: Charles Lindsey
> Cc: DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] list expanders (was Re: chained signatures,
was
> l=
Deiva,
Why are you sending Facebook photo requests to this mailing list?
--
Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com
News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com
My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA
_
Hmmm, could you send me a copy offlist? It appears that my edge device
roundfiled that message
In any case,
I receive mail from an author called ietf-d...@mipassoc.org. It appears to be a
compilation of interesting conversations, some more interesting than others. I
am not really concerned about
hector wrote:
> The basic overall problem is we are trying to make something with
> an POLICY framework.
FWIW, that should be - ... work without a policy framework.
--
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ie
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> And every list will be diferent, so we need to look at real examples. And
> by a strange coincidence, we have just seen a concrete example on a list
> well-known to all of us.
Yup, I am going to enjoy reading this thread.:-)
Speaking as a commercial List Server produc
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:51:45 +0100, SM wrote:
> At 11:51 13-06-2009, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> But there will be a few lists where this is not the case, such as the
>> one
>> SM mentions. I don't know whether the spam on that particular list is
>> because the list admin is careless, or whether
Jim Fenton wrote:
> Dave has proposed a change to the rfc4871-errata draft in response to a
> concern from the IESG. Can you clarify what concern the IESG has this
> is attempting to address? I'll repeat my original question below since
> you may have missed it.
It's attempting to address Culle
14 matches
Mail list logo
