On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:27:52 +0100, hector gmail.sant9...@winserver.com
wrote:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:24:56 +0100, hector
gmail.sant9...@winserver.com
wrote:
The deployment guide section 6.5 writes:
Any forwarder that modifies messages in ways that will
--On 13 October 2009 19:47:53 -0400 hector gmail.sant9...@winserver.com
wrote:
Ian Eiloart wrote:
So what you are saying is that LIST SERVER developers SHOULD NOT add
ADSP features to restrict signing of ADSP domain nor bother to see if
it should allow these restrictive domains to
--On 13 October 2009 23:07:58 + John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
This is really much simpler than you're making it out to be.
I understand the issue here, but part of the point of DKIM/ADSP is to
allow automated systems to assign reputation to an email domain or
email address - a
--On 14 October 2009 10:32:32 +0100 Charles Lindsey c...@clerew.man.ac.uk
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:27:52 +0100, hector gmail.sant9...@winserver.com
wrote:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:24:56 +0100, hector
gmail.sant9...@winserver.com
wrote:
The deployment guide
--On 13 October 2009 09:32:20 -0700 Murray S. Kucherawy
m...@cloudmark.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 7:24 PM
To: Daniel Black
Cc:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
But what [if] its not there?DKIM=DISCARDABLE provides a Domain
Policy that mail must be signed and valid.
If a valid signature is absent, then indeed the listadmin should discard
it (maybe even with 'ALL'). But the case of most interest is when the
message
Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 13 October 2009 09:32:20 -0700 Murray S. Kucherawy
m...@cloudmark.com wrote:
-Original Message-
Another data point: Google Mail won't use ADSP because they will not
discard someone's mail outright without a written agreement from the
sending domain
Ian Eiloart wrote:
OK. What ADSP adds is the ability to assign reputation to a specific email
claiming to originate from a specific domain. Except for unknown.
A DKIM signature says nothing about origination. A signature is typically by
an organization that handles the message, but it need
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Ian Eiloart wrote:
OK. What ADSP adds is the ability to assign reputation to a specific email
claiming to originate from a specific domain. Except for unknown.
A DKIM signature says nothing about origination. A signature is typically
by
an organization that
This is a good example of the problem here.
On the one hand we have a nobel cause and wish to protect the brand
reputation with a trusted service using a positive Domain Reputation
Assertion.
But on the other hand, we don't want want to follow any violation or
deviations of this positive
On 10/14/09 7:10 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Ian Eiloart wrote:
OK. What ADSP adds is the ability to assign reputation to a specific email
claiming to originate from a specific domain. Except for unknown.
A DKIM signature says nothing about origination. A signature is typically
by
an
On Oct 14, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
If a valid signature is absent, then indeed the listadmin should
discard
it (maybe even with 'ALL'). But the case of most interest is when the
message arrives with a valid signature. In that case, the listadmin
should
do his best to
-Original Message-
From: i...@sussex.ac.uk [mailto:i...@sussex.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 4:53 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy; John R. Levine; Daniel Black
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from the
receiving side
-Original Message-
From: HLS [mailto:sant9...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of hector
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:06 AM
To: Ian Eiloart
Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; Daniel Black; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from the
receiving side
Lets please keep the focus:
Section 6.1 and 7.4.1 describe a ADSP standard.
Section 6.5 describes a forwarding signing semantics that conflicts
with 6.1 and 7.4.1.
This is not a matter of one spec predating another. The deployment
guide attempt to merge the suite of DKIM technologies.
Under
A more interesting case to consider is acm.org style forwarders,
where the forwarder is, in many ways, the final destination, and where
the address at the forwarder is owned by the final recipient, and
where they will likely ask for transactional mail of the sort that
senders might consider
You do realize that this just give people ammunition to throw the book
at anyone for violating IETF standards. Its a fact, they would be
violating a IETF standard if they break mail knowing FULL well there
is an technology specifically designed to protected against such abuse.
If a ISP or
John Levine wrote:
A more interesting case to consider is acm.org style forwarders,
where the forwarder is, in many ways, the final destination, and where
the address at the forwarder is owned by the final recipient, and
where they will likely ask for transactional mail of the sort that
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
In effect, ADSP (LEVINE) is saying:
This is possible useful for MDA to use.
But MTA (intermediary signers) can ignore it.
I don't think that is sound engineering.
Until someone proposes a way to force all MTAs, including
legacy ones, to pay
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of hector
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:20 AM
To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] brand protection, was Is anyone using ADSP?
A
You're trying very hard to infer something that was not stated or implied in
either what Dave said above or in the specs themselves.
In general, people are trying very hard to infer something from DKIM
signatures and from ADSP that simply can't be safely inferred from the
protocols as
-Original Message-
From: HLS [mailto:sant9...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of hector
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:30 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: i...@sussex.ac.uk; Daniel Black; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from the
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Oh, I can list a pretty large number of mail-related RFCs, some of them
standards track, that are not universally implemented and the world hasn't
blown up yet.
Maybe the world will only blow up after we argue about this for another few
years?
--
J.D. Falk
On 10/14/2009 09:44 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: i...@sussex.ac.uk [mailto:i...@sussex.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 4:53 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy; John R. Levine; Daniel Black
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: i...@sussex.ac.uk [mailto:i...@sussex.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 4:53 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy; John R. Levine; Daniel Black
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more
J.D. Falk wrote:
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Oh, I can list a pretty large number of mail-related RFCs, some of them
standards track, that are not universally implemented and the world hasn't
blown up yet.
Maybe the world will only blow up after we argue about this for another few
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:m...@mtcc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:19 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: i...@sussex.ac.uk; John R. Levine; Daniel Black; ietf-
d...@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? -
-Original Message-
From: HLS [mailto:sant9...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of hector
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:53 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: Michael Thomas; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from the
receiving side
If
On 10/14/09 10:51 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
You're trying very hard to infer something that was not stated or implied in
either what Dave said above or in the specs themselves.
In general, people are trying very hard to infer something from DKIM
signatures and from ADSP that simply can't be
Doug Otis wrote:
On 10/14/09 10:51 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
All of which begs the basic question of why this thread is being pursued?
The
questions and answers aren't new.
Good question.
While email reputation has managed to retain a semblance of email
functionality, this often
30 matches
Mail list logo
