On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
> There's a Working Group Last Call in effect for -01. Should we:
>
> - Continue to direct comments at -01
> - Comment on -02 instead
> - or will the WGLC be restarted on the -02 draft?
I think it's not necessary for us to restart, but reviews
50% of the spam we see is RFC compliant DKIM signed, DKIM isnt the issue in
your example its the operator and how they determine reputation
On Oct 11, 2010, at 9:23 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
> Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>
>> On 10/11/2010 3:05 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> If you believe that sending ma
Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> On 10/11/2010 3:05 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> If you believe that sending mail with a valid bad guy signature is
>> an interesting attack on DKIM, then that implies that you're willing
>> to believe mail that is signed by arbitrary strangers.
>
>
> Well...
>
> But it's
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 3:18 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] detecting header mutations after signing
>
> It's not really an
On 10/11/10 3:05 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Charles Lindsey:
>>> When the bad guy sends mail with (multiple) forged headers, the
>>> best they can get is that naive mail programs render their forged
>>> header with an indication that THE BAD GUY'S DKIM SIGNATURE VERIFIED.
>>>
>>> Sending forged h
On 11/10/10 22:35, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> The same question on Working Group Last Call applies here as well.
>>
>> Abort, retry or ignore? :-)
>
> I guess it's up to the chairs. It hadn't occurred to me that this could
> upset a WGLC.
At this point I'd say that the changes are (I ho
On 10/11/2010 3:05 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> If you believe that sending mail with a valid bad guy signature is
> an interesting attack on DKIM, then that implies that you're willing
> to believe mail that is signed by arbitrary strangers.
Well...
But it's not an attack on DKIM.
It's not rea
Charles Lindsey:
> > When the bad guy sends mail with (multiple) forged headers, the
> > best they can get is that naive mail programs render their forged
> > header with an indication that THE BAD GUY'S DKIM SIGNATURE VERIFIED.
> >
> > Sending forged headers with bad guy's DKIM signatures is not a
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Jim Fenton
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 1:46 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D
> Action:draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-03.txt
>
> T
On 10/11/2010 1:44 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
> - Continue to direct comments at -01
> - Comment on -02 instead
> - or will the WGLC be restarted on the -02 draft?
Just my personal opinion:
The revision is based on LC comments so far. Since ultimately the working
group
has to agree on the docume
The same question on Working Group Last Call applies here as well.
Abort, retry or ignore? :-)
-Jim
On 10/11/10 12:30 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Domain Keys Identif
There's a Working Group Last Call in effect for -01. Should we:
- Continue to direct comments at -01
- Comment on -02 instead
- or will the WGLC be restarted on the -02 draft?
-Jim
On 10/11/10 10:47 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>> Title: DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures
>
Naturally, moments after posting an update to the implementation report, some
other interesting data came to light. One of our project members decided to
start watching the DNS for what queries were hitting his nameservers after
turning up DNS signing. The result included queries for policy at
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Keys Identified Mail Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : RFC4871 Implementation Report
Author(s) : M. Kucherawy
Filename: draft-i
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Keys Identified Mail Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures
Author(s) : D. Crocker, M. Kucherawy, T. Ha
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Ian Eiloart
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 2:36 AM
> To: Charles Lindsey; DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] THIS IS A MULTIPLE 5322.FROM MESSAGE
>
> > But it IS a serious pro
Charles Lindsey:
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:25:40 +0100, Wietse Venema
> wrote:
>
> > If I understand things correctly, the solution is already available
> > in DKIM today. It involves signer configuration (sign for N+1
> > instances of each header that is covered by the signature) and
> > requi
--On 8 October 2010 15:38:46 +0100 Charles Lindsey
wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 19:18:19 +0100, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>> The larger issue here is would anybody rush out to close this MUST.
>> I think that it is highly unlikely that anybody is going to care at this
>> point. That goes for *a
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:25:40 +0100, Wietse Venema
wrote:
> If I understand things correctly, the solution is already available
> in DKIM today. It involves signer configuration (sign for N+1
> instances of each header that is covered by the signature) and
> requires no change in protocol or se
19 matches
Mail list logo
