On 10/6/09 1:46 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 10/06/2009 10:30 AM, bill.ox...@cox.com wrote:
>> C) I can sell the ability to do 3rd party DKIM signing for those companies
>> who are described in A)
>
> If you're getting paid for signing somebody else's traffic, doesn't
> it make sense that the se
On 10/06/2009 03:08 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> Practicalities, which explained the failure of PGP and S/MINE. Great
> protocol, except they are unworkable for the common user, like most security
> protocols coming out of IETF (and it is not me who is saying it but I heard
> it in a variation fro
Practicalities, which explained the failure of PGP and S/MINE. Great protocol,
except they are unworkable for the common user, like most security protocols
coming out of IETF (and it is not me who is saying it but I heard it in a
variation from Stephen Squires)
The people that want the signing,
Just on 3rd party signing and mainly for my own benefit (and hopefully yours) I
see a few cases I'll try to describe.
1) I send an email to a mailing list, I first party dkim sign the email
Considering mailman behavior, what does it do with this email?
-It could resend it as is, adding a third
On 10/06/2009 10:30 AM, bill.ox...@cox.com wrote:
> C) I can sell the ability to do 3rd party DKIM signing for those companies
> who are described in A)
If you're getting paid for signing somebody else's traffic, doesn't
it make sense that the service can do some hand holding to get their
DNS set
C) I can sell the ability to do 3rd party DKIM signing for those companies who
are described in A)
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf
Of John Levine [jo...@iecc.com]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 8:38 PM
To: ie
On 10/5/09 5:38 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> In light of the comments by Bill Oxley and my belief that the ability of
>> a domain to designate signing by a specified 3rd party is useful, ...
>
> It would really be helpful if you two could explain WHY you think it's
> useful. Given the way that DKIM w
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:37:56 +0100, MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> wrote:
>
>> In light of the comments by Bill Oxley and my belief that the ability of
>> a domain to designate signing by a specified 3rd party is useful, I'd
>> like to see this included in the update. I be
> C) I can sell the ability to do 3rd party DKIM signing for those companies
> who are described in A)
Oh, OK, so what we need is better DNS provisioning tools. Problem solved,
as far as the IETF is concerned.
R's,
John
>
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipa
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:37:56 +0100, MH Michael Hammer (5304)
wrote:
> In light of the comments by Bill Oxley and my belief that the ability of
> a domain to designate signing by a specified 3rd party is useful, I'd
> like to see this included in the update. I believe this would be useful
> for
10 matches
Mail list logo
