Barry,
I think this might be a matter of definition for validity. I was
not speaking of truthfulness, authentication or authorization. I am
stating that a valid DKIM signature is making a series of validity
statements or correctness assertions for the various parts it binds to
the
On 10/23/2010 12:25 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
No, not at all. While I think it was probably a mistake to make the
signing of ANY header fields MUST (we should have just put From in
with the other SHOULD fields), the fact that From MUST be signed
says, in itself, nothing about the *validity* of
Dave CROCKER wrote:
I have two
submission domains that I use. One, gmail.com, which does DKIM
signing, will only allow me to use a From address after it has sent
a test message to that address and seen that I can access the test
message. So it's made *some* level of confirmation that I
Here's my proposal for a section in Security Considerations to talk about the
malformation issues that have been discussed on the list. This is an addition
to -02 directly and does not continue from any of the other proposals.
8.14 Malformed Inputs
The universe of email is replete with
I mostly agree. (Wow!)
1) During the handling of a message in conjunction with a DKIM result that
indicates a
valid signature, consider as valid only those fields and the body portion that
was
covered by the signature. Note that this is not to say unsigned content is
not valid,
but merely
-Original Message-
From: John Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 9:25 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for new text about multiple header issues
I mostly agree. (Wow!)
Huzzah!
2) Refuse outright
OpenDKIM now has enough data to make some interesting observations about
signatures and MIME.
As far as MIME encodings go (only the outermost encoding was counted), there
was a pretty common theme:
binary failed 4% of the time
quoted-printable failed 4% of the time
7bit failed 7.7% of the time
On Oct 24, 2010, at 9:05 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Here’s my proposal for a section in Security Considerations to talk about the
malformation issues that have been discussed on the list. This is an
addition to -02 directly and does not continue from any of the other
proposals.
I
The universe of email is replete with software that forgives
messages which do not conform strictly to the grammar that defines
what valid email looks like. This is a long-standing practice known
informally as the robustness principle, originally coined by Jon
Postel: Be conservative in what
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Mark Delany
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 9:56 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for new text about multiple header issues
Well, I'm clearly
On 10/24/2010 9:55 PM, Mark Delany wrote:
Well, I'm clearly the outlier here, but I think be liberal is
protocol nonsense that has been accepted as conventional wisdom for
far too long now.
Put another way, Accept crud and pass it on constitutes good
protocol design? Gimme a break.
Jon
On Oct 24, 2010, at 9:55 PM, Mark Delany wrote:
The universe of email is replete with software that forgives
messages which do not conform strictly to the grammar that defines
what valid email looks like. This is a long-standing practice known
informally as the robustness principle,
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 9:54 PM
To: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for new text about multiple header issues
1) During the handling of
On Oct 24, 2010, at 10:15 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 9:54 PM
To: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for new text
Mark Delany wrote:
The universe of email is replete with software that forgives
messages which do not conform strictly to the grammar that defines
what valid email looks like. This is a long-standing practice known
informally as the robustness principle, originally coined by Jon
Postel: Be
15 matches
Mail list logo
