On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:21 PM, J.D. Falk jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.orgwrote:
On Sep 9, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Rumor has is that some large players (such as Yahoo!) are
disregarding such ephemeral property of a selector and
are trying to associate a reputation scheme based
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Jeff Macdonald macfisher...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:21 PM, J.D. Falk
jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.orgwrote:
On Sep 9, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Rumor has is that some large players (such as Yahoo!) are
disregarding such
http://feedbackloop.yahoo.net/
Step 2 doesn't help. (yes, you can put * for all selectors, but asking for
one when it isn't really needed leads to FUD).
A selector can of course be in a sub-domain format, such as
september.dialup._domainkey.example.net
I wonder if they considered letting
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:35:16 +0100, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it
wrote:
I repeat the two proposals that have been made, and ask once more
whether there are further ways to achieve similar results.
Charles' From-%-rewriting.
It seems the WG disagrees with it. However, it has also been
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 15:15:37 +0100, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
I think you need to better appreciate and understand how fundamental
the Message From field for any forms of communications and/or mail
networks is. It would be a radical change to open up this door and
Pandora box to
On Sep 10, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 15:15:37 +0100, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
I think you need to better appreciate and understand how fundamental
the Message From field for any forms of communications and/or mail
networks is. It would be a
The problem is that too many people on this WG take the view I believe in
solution-X (TPA, PGP-MIME, don't use ADSP because it's broke, don't use
mailing list if you advertise 'discardable') and I will vote down any
solution other than X.
Call me old-fashioned if you will, but I take the view
I wonder if they considered letting you enter *.dialup or somesuch?
I dunno, but I think the last time something like this came up, we agreed
that if you want to have two separate reputation streams, they should have
different d= rather than different selectors.
R's,
John
On Sep 10, 2010, at 12:34 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
The problem is that too many people on this WG take the view I believe in
solution-X (TPA, PGP-MIME, don't use ADSP because it's broke, don't use
mailing list if you advertise 'discardable') and I will vote down any
solution other than X.
On Sep 10, 2010, at 6:55 AM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
http://feedbackloop.yahoo.net/
Step 2 doesn't help. (yes, you can put * for all selectors, but asking for
one when it isn't really needed leads to FUD).
That's a complaint feedback loop. Totally separate system.
(Yes, some mailbox
On Sep 10, 2010, at 2:53 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Sep 10, 2010, at 12:34 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
The problem is that too many people on this WG take the view I believe in
solution-X (TPA, PGP-MIME, don't use ADSP because it's broke, don't use
mailing list if you advertise 'discardable')
On Friday, September 10, 2010 03:17:47 pm Steve Atkins wrote:
On Sep 10, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 15:15:37 +0100, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net
wrote:
I think you need to better appreciate and understand how fundamental
the Message From field for any
On Friday, September 10, 2010 05:53:57 pm J.D. Falk wrote:
On Sep 10, 2010, at 12:34 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
The problem is that too many people on this WG take the view I believe
in solution-X (TPA, PGP-MIME, don't use ADSP because it's broke, don't
use mailing list if you advertise
On Sep 10, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Friday, September 10, 2010 03:17:47 pm Steve Atkins wrote:
On Sep 10, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 15:15:37 +0100, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net
wrote:
I think you need to better appreciate and
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of J.D. Falk
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 3:05 PM
To: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02 review
Forgot to mention: I'd totally support the
On Friday, September 10, 2010 06:37:46 pm Steve Atkins wrote:
On Sep 10, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Friday, September 10, 2010 03:17:47 pm Steve Atkins wrote:
On Sep 10, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 15:15:37 +0100, Hector Santos
On Sep 10, 2010, at 3:46 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Friday, September 10, 2010 06:37:46 pm Steve Atkins wrote:
On Sep 10, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I don't think it inoculates them against ADSP problems - rather
it opens them up to violations of the security model that
Yes, but nobody is trying to change that. We seem to be agreed that what a
mailing list sends is, from some POV, a new message, and so logically a
new From: is not wholly out of order.
What's the benefit to this, though, other than obscuring the original
author?
If the mailing list system
Steve Atkins st...@wordtothewise.com wrote:
On Sep 10, 2010, at 3:46 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Friday, September 10, 2010 06:37:46 pm Steve Atkins wrote:
On Sep 10, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I don't think it inoculates them against ADSP problems - rather
it opens
Forgot to mention: I'd totally support the creation of a separate
draft listing Things We Thought Of But Haven't Tried Yet, so long as
it's clearly labeled.
Of course. This is the Experimental I-D and perhaps RFC that I've
been encouraging people with paper designs to write.
R's,
John
Charles,
Lets keep in mind that when a backend has control of a online MUA, it
has full control of the display rendering and could do practically
anything to a convey an intent for the user:
From: Original Author
Note: 1st party signature removed by the MLM agent XYZ
Note: 3rd
It's not clear to me that there's consensus that anything qualifies as Best
Current. We have some small samples of a few things that some people have
tried, but I don't sense we're there yet.
I hope that lists signing their outbound mail qualifies. Large
providers Googlegroups and Yahoogroups
This is not the only potential use of such a feature. I've spoken
to one MLM developer who told me the feature has been previously
requested for privacy reasons nothing to do with DKIM or ADSP.
That sounds like a somewhat different feature. What we've been
talking about so far is basically
John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
It's not clear to me that there's consensus that anything qualifies as Best
Current. We have some small samples of a few things that some people have
tried, but I don't sense we're there yet.
I hope that lists signing their outbound mail qualifies. Large
Scott Kitterman wrote:
John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
It's not clear to me that there's consensus that anything qualifies as Best
Current. We have some small samples of a few things that some people have
tried, but I don't sense we're there yet.
I hope that lists signing their
25 matches
Mail list logo
