The -01 draft was briefly presented in Maastricht. We'd like to get more
review of and feedback about it from people with an ideal in mind of starting a
WGLC toward the end of September.
Please take some time to review it and provide comments, even if it's just
I've read it, looks good. We
I promised to do this some while back, but only just got a round tuit.
Scenario:
discardable.example publishes a 'discardable' ADSP
MLM.example operates a mailing list that adds boilerplate that breaks
signatures.
j...@discardable.example sends mail to the mailing list with
Murray et al.
I've done a second review of this. Most suggestions here relate to making the
document easlier to read colocating like sections and splitting dual themes.
There are a few new bits within for thought.
1. Introduction
(moderate importance)
After much discussion and editing I think
On 7/29/10 1:21 PM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
Various suggestions to mitigate this problem have been mooted, but none
of them works perfectly, mainly because they rely on certain behaviours by
discardable.example, MLM.example and discardable.example, all of whom need
to persuaded to observe
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:22 AM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Alternative MAiling List Approach
[...]
So there it is. Discussion?
On Thursday 29 July 2010 21:21:41 Charles Lindsey wrote:
I promised to do this some while back, but only just got a round tuit.
Ah the mythical round tuit.
I put a similar idea through when once I had a round tuit. Feel free to follow
the threads.
--On 26 July 2010 18:24:34 +0200 J.D. Falk
jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.org wrote:
I think it's because, when you implement most protocols, if your end is
broken then you can't even talk to the other end. With ADSP, if your end
is broken then you can still talk SMTP and even sign with DKIM,
--On 29 July 2010 18:46:34 +0200 Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote:
On 29/Jul/10 13:21, Charles Lindsey wrote:
The REAL cause of the problem is that From: line. My proposal is that MLM
should change the From: header in such a way that the mail appears to
have come from MLM.example and
The REAL cause of the problem is that From: line. My proposal is that MLM
should change the From: header in such a way that the mail appears to have
come from MLM.example and not from discardable.example.
Hmmn. I don't see how this does what ADSP users want. There's the
obvious issue that
On Jul 29, 2010, at 9:46 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 29/Jul/10 13:21, Charles Lindsey wrote:
The REAL cause of the problem is that From: line. My proposal is that MLM
should change the From: header in such a way that the mail appears to have
come from MLM.example and not from
On Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:46:34 pm Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 29/Jul/10 13:21, Charles Lindsey wrote:
The REAL cause of the problem is that From: line. My proposal is that MLM
should change the From: header in such a way that the mail appears to
have come from MLM.example and not from
On Jul 29, 2010, at 5:09 PM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 26 July 2010 18:24:34 +0200 J.D. Falk jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.org
wrote:
I think it's because, when you implement most protocols, if your end is
broken then you can't even talk to the other end. With ADSP, if your end
is broken then
On Jul 29, 2010, at 11:53 AM, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Jul 29, 2010, at 5:09 PM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 26 July 2010 18:24:34 +0200 J.D. Falk jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.org
wrote:
I think it's because, when you implement most protocols, if your end is
broken then you can't even talk to the
On 07/29/2010 11:53 AM, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Jul 29, 2010, at 5:09 PM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 26 July 2010 18:24:34 +0200 J.D. Falkjdfalk-li...@cybernothing.org
wrote:
I think it's because, when you implement most protocols, if your end is
broken then you can't even talk to the other end.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:22 AM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Alternative MAiling List Approach
The REAL cause of the problem is
On Jul 29, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Should the MLM draft suggest From: replacement and addition of Reply-To: as a
specific example of DKIM-friendly MLM behavior?
No. DKIM doesn't really say much about either the From: address or the
Reply-To: address, so such a
16 matches
Mail list logo
