-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 11:06 PM
To: Daniel Black
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists and s/mime dkim signatures -
mua
Hector Santos:
IMO, it is these statements that continues to raise confusion and
raise the barrier of industry wide adoption that includes the general
population of MTA developers and operators from tiny to small to even
large.
As a part-time MTA developer I am not confused. The DKIM
On 8/24/2010 6:42 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
Please show us in RFC4871 where it says DKIMs main purpose is assessment
by reputation filtering engines.
It's a fair question, but answering it encounters three core problems.
The first is that 4871 is not a systems specification. It's
On 8/23/10 8:05 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 8/21/2010 6:06 PM, Daniel Black wrote:
Taking an approach saying we don't care if DKIM survives MLMs is a
step in the opposite direction. This is not a proposal I support.
Not really, since it was known from the start that survival through
On 8/24/2010 11:59 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
Then it would appear that we are substantially in violent agreement.
in spite of our best efforts.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
NOTE WELL: This list
On Aug 24, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 09:45:20AM -0400, Wietse Venema allegedly wrote:
Hector Santos:
IMO, it is these statements that continues to raise confusion and
raise the barrier of industry wide adoption that includes the general
population of MTA
Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 8/24/2010 11:59 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
Then it would appear that we are substantially in violent agreement.
in spite of our best efforts.
may I suggest we stop here for a moment and get back to the original
question, which in essence was:
-Original Message-
From: Rolf E. Sonneveld [mailto:r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:31 PM
To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
Cc: MH Michael Hammer (5304); ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists and s/mime dkim signatures - mua
considerations
As a part-time MTA developer I am not confused. The DKIM signature
provides a simple piece of trace information (I handled this mail)
that is cryptographically bound to some header and body content.
Yes. And that the obverse is possible: I didn't handle this mail.
I don't see how
On Aug 24, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Mark Delany wrote:
As a part-time MTA developer I am not confused. The DKIM signature
provides a simple piece of trace information (I handled this mail)
that is cryptographically bound to some header and body content.
Yes. And that the obverse is possible: I
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:05:38 +0100, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Not really, since it was known from the start that survival through an
MLM is
highly problematic and the steps towards helping survival were known to
be quite
limited.
Nevertheless, there IS a solution that MLMs
MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
[...]
In any event, I perceive MLMs as the tail that appears to be wagging the dog.
In the context of email authentication, there are so many much more
interesting mail streams from my perspective.
+1
The DKIM signature
provides a simple piece of
Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Although DKIM does not specify (as far as I know) what to do with DKIM
signatures in inner bodyparts, I think DKIM signatures should never be
removed without a good reason.
If you believe this, then you have to advocate the removal of the RFC
4871 mandate regarding
Dave,
The term Reputation Filtering Engines (RFE) is understood in what it
means. Currently proprietary solutions.
Absolutely wrong with that. But if you are saying this include policy
or more specifically the IETF DKIM Working Group work item RFC 5617,
this I don't see a problem in your
Hector Santos wrote:
Dave,
The term Reputation Filtering Engines (RFE) is understood in what it
means. Currently proprietary solutions.
Absolutely wrong with that.
Sorry, missing word - Absolutely NOTHING wrong with that
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
may I suggest we stop here for a moment and get back to the original
question, which in essence was: should a 1st signer DKIM signature be
preserved 'coûte que coûte' when a message is handled by a MLM, or not.
The answer is yes, sure, but that's the same answer I'd offer if you asked
if
On Aug 24, 2010, at 6:35 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
may I suggest we stop here for a moment and get back to the original
question, which in essence was: should a 1st signer DKIM signature be
preserved 'coûte que coûte' when a message is handled by a MLM, or not.
It shouldn't, at least not if
17 matches
Mail list logo
