On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 02:54:13PM +1200, Franck Martin allegedly wrote:
I found today this patent:
US PATENT 7487217
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/57449330/Network-Domain-Reputation-based-Spam-Filtering---Patent-7487217
but then it seems prior art existed in the form of DKIM (which was
US PATENT 7487217
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7487217.html
but then it seems prior art existed in the form of DKIM (which was
started around 2004 http://news.domainmonster.com/dkim-email/)
This isn't a patent about authentication, it's about spam filtering
using the reputation of domains
Yes, it ties an identifier to a bag of bits, and yes it specifies what
those bits are, but it really does deal only with those bits and not
(necessarily) the entire message.
Technically. you are correct. Semantically, that's silly.
We went through backflips trying to figure out how to
On 10/16/2010 10:26 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
Yes, it ties an identifier to a bag of bits, and yes it specifies what
those bits are, but it really does deal only with those bits and not
(necessarily) the entire message.
Technically. you are correct. Semantically, that's silly.
We went
On 10/16/10 4:50 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/16/2010 10:26 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
Yes, it ties an identifier to a bag of bits, and yes it specifies what
those bits are, but it really does deal only with those bits and not
(necessarily) the entire message.
Technically. you are correct.
SM wrote:
You can tell me if I am wrong here cause I am trying to make sure I
It is not up to me to determine whether you are wrong. :-)
From an IETF procedural angle. :)
1) Verifier TXT record parsing
I checked for this, but did not find it, but was a quick scan.
If the DKIM specs
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Mark Delany
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 2:39 AM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:10:48AM -0400,
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 10:50 AM
To: John R. Levine
Cc: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] sophistry is bad, was Data integrity claims
On
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 5:10 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] detecting header mutations after signing
MH Michael Hammer
On 10/16/2010 1:07 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
This is disingenuous on your part. It is akin to saying that although
the common usage of hammers is to hit nails, we must accept within the
definition of normal the usage of beating people on the head with a
hammer simply because
On Saturday, October 16, 2010 10:50:25 am Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/16/2010 10:26 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
Yes, it ties an identifier to a bag of bits, and yes it specifies what
those bits are, but it really does deal only with those bits and not
(necessarily) the entire message.
Far be it for me to defend Dave, but I think you two are in
violent agreement. I think you misread some of Dave's comment
because they were posed as rhetorical.
Mike
On 10/16/2010 11:56 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Saturday, October 16, 2010 10:50:25 am Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/16/2010 10:26
Which header fields are essential to protect?
How much of the message body is essential to protect?
Your questions are noted. Other than the MUST to sign the From: header,
the DKIM spec offers the technical latitide to create a totally worthless
signature. I don't know anyone who
13 matches
Mail list logo
