Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-vesely-dkim-joint-sigs

2010-09-23 Thread Ian Eiloart
--On 16 September 2010 07:05:34 -0400 "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" wrote: > > Ian, this makes no sense to me. If a signing domain is concerned enough > to choose to implement ADSP, why would they reduce what they are signing > to accommodate a small percentage of their mail going to MLMs that th

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis

2010-09-23 Thread Dave CROCKER
Jeff, Thanks... On 9/22/2010 12:18 PM, Jeff Macdonald wrote: > Section 3.9: > > INFORMATIVE DISCUSSION: This document does not require the value > of the SDID or AUID to match the identifier in any other message > header field. > > should "the identifier" be "an identifier"? pretty s

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis

2010-09-23 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
> -Original Message- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] > On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:19 AM > To: Jeff Macdonald > Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis > > well, t

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis

2010-09-23 Thread MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> -Original Message- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim- > boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Macdonald > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 3:18 PM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis

2010-09-23 Thread Tony Hansen
+1 On 9/23/2010 1:34 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] >> On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER >> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:19 AM >> To: Jeff Macdonald >> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org >> Subj

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-vesely-dkim-joint-sigs

2010-09-23 Thread John R. Levine
Ian, this makes no sense to me. If a signing domain is concerned enough to choose to implement ADSP, why would they reduce what they are signing to accommodate a small percentage of their mail going to MLMs that they may or may not be able to identify? I'm with you. All of this emphasis on comp

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis

2010-09-23 Thread Jeff Macdonald
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > To make sure I understand the intent:  move the set of subsections that > introduce higher-level constructs, to come before the sub-sections that > define syntactic elements? > > Sounds like an improvement to me. Yes and thanks! -- Jeff M

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis

2010-09-23 Thread John Levine
>> Sounds like an improvement to me. > >Yes and thanks! Seems unanimous. Dave, do you have enough changes to do another version? R's, John ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-vesely-dkim-joint-sigs

2010-09-23 Thread Hector Santos
John R. Levine wrote: > That's why my advice is that lists should sign their mail, which is easy > and at worst harmless, and we're done. -1. As others as stated as well, it all depends on your mail integration into your ADMD. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis

2010-09-23 Thread Dave CROCKER
On 9/23/2010 4:07 PM, John Levine wrote: > Seems unanimous. Dave, do you have enough changes to do another > version? I was planning on waiting a couple of (work) days. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ NOTE WELL: