On 03/Apr/11 18:45, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> I think when it's clear there's no more progress that can be made,
> you close down and move on. You can always start up a WG later
> when there's a chance for better progress or new work to be done.
Is there a difference between the WG and the mai
- Original Message -
> From: "John Levine"
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Cc: fra...@genius.com
> Sent: Monday, 4 April, 2011 4:09:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
> >Another way is to have a dkim tag that specify the header that
> >indicates the
On 01/Apr/11 23:08, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> *2.3**. Identity*
>
>A person, role, or organization. In the context of DKIM, examples
>include the author, the author's organization, an ISP along the
>handling path, an independent trust assessment service, and a mailing
>list op
Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> On 4/1/2011 10:04 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>> I would suggest we deprecate i= and add st= (if not already used)
>> that would let the sender specify a stream category.
>
>> With IPv6 we may loose IP reputation, this is a way to bring it
>> back within DKIM.
>
>
> W
On Apr 3, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> OK. So the capability exists, but people choose not to use it. Some people
> in
> fact choose to disable this capability; note that a) ADSP is an add-on, not
> the
> DKIM core, and b) the actual uptake of ADSP on the receive side is not known
> Characterizing our 'customers' for this standard as "hostile or
> aincompetent" doesn't seem like posturing ourselves for success. There
> are deployment considerations that impact adoption of many (all?) technical
> standards. We ignore them at our peril.
Hmmn. Where I come from, the peop
On Apr 4, 2011, at 12:09 AM, John Levine wrote:
> If there is a reason why people aren't able to use a d= domain per
> stream, I wish someone would explain in simple terms that even a
> dimwit like me can understand.
>
> The only arguments I'm aware of is that hostile or incompetent DNS
> manage
I believe the context for your earlier comments that I responded to was the
discussion about deprecating i= and/or adding a new st= tag. I hope my
comments were not interpreted as supporting either of those changes. That was
not my intention.
On Apr 4, 2011, at 10:47 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>One new-ish data point: I believe Hotmail is leveraging the ADSP records from
>domains they trust to be operating with consistency.
As has often been pointed out, if it's domains you already know
something about, you don't need ADSP.
ADSP is only the most obvious of assertions that people mak
> Signers SHOULD NOT remove any DKIM-Signature header fields from
> messages they are signing, even if they know that the signatures
> cannot be verified. Instead, when a relay alters a message such
> that any valid signature gets broken, it SHOULD re-identify the
> message by synthesizi
John Levine:
> >Another way is to have a dkim tag that specify the header that
> >indicates the stream classification
>
> >Many ways to kill the same bird.
>
> If there is a reason why people aren't able to use a d= domain per
> stream, I wish someone would explain in simple terms that even a
> d
On 04/Apr/11 06:09, John Levine wrote:
>> Another way is to have a dkim tag that specify the header that
>> indicates the stream classification
>>
>> Many ways to kill the same bird.
>
> If there is a reason why people aren't able to use a d= domain per
> stream, I wish someone would explain in s
On 04/Apr/11 18:03, John Levine wrote:
>> Signers SHOULD NOT remove any DKIM-Signature header fields from
>> messages they are signing, even if they know that the signatures
>> cannot be verified. Instead, when a relay alters a message such
>> that any valid signature gets broken, it SHOUL
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Franck Martin
> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 2:26 PM
> To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
> Cc: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
>
> Howeve
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Franck Martin
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 3:21 AM
> To: John Levine
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
>
> I'
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 2:19 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Work group future
>
> On 03/Apr/11 18:45, Murray S. Kucherawy
On 4/4/11 7:47 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
> ... kludges to work around short term deployment problems are rarely
> a good way to do long term standards development. The problems go
> away, but the kludges don't.
Why are A and records used to locate mail servers and not limit
discovery to j
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of John R. Levine
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 7:47 AM
> To: McDowell, Brett
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
>
If you want to skim this message, at least please read the comments at
the bottom.
On 4/1/2011 9:51 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> For example, our implementation would put the username@domain into
>> the i= value when it was dealing with an authenticated user mail
>> submission, and otherwise le
On 4/4/2011 2:38 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>
>> On 03/Apr/11 18:45, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>> I think when it's clear there's no more progress that can be made,
>>> you close down and move on. You can always start up a WG later
>>> when there's a chance for b
- Original Message -
> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy"
> To: "IETF DKIM WG"
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 April, 2011 6:23:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org
> > [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mip
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Franck Martin
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 6:21 AM
> To: John Levine
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
>
>
- Original Message -
> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy"
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 April, 2011 6:27:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org
> > [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun
I think you are thinking it as only a DNS issue.
But creating a sub-domain, means that the from needs to match too, therefore
you may need to remap all your corporate email addresses from j...@iecc.com to
j...@corp.ieec.com to separate from the emails sent by your application at
iecc.com (if yo
> -Original Message-
> From: Franck Martin [mailto:fra...@genius.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 1:04 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
>
> Yes I know, this is not what I was asking. For instance, in open
> -Original Message-
> From: Franck Martin [mailto:fra...@genius.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 1:13 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
>
> the question is:
> What are the domains that use a sub
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Franck Martin
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 1:22 PM
> To: John Levine
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
>
> Bu
- Original Message -
> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy"
> To: "Franck Martin"
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 April, 2011 8:30:35 AM
> Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Franck Martin [mailto:fra...@geniu
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 4:31 PM
> To: Franck Martin
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/valu
Franck may have been asking a different question:
as an openDKIM user, is there a way to add an additional value to
be added to the signature?
Tony
On 4/4/2011 4:24 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Franck Martin [mailto:fra...@genius.com]
>> Sent: Monday
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Tony Hansen
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 1:58 PM
> To: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
>
> Franck may have been asking a di
On Apr 4, 2011, at 1:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> I think you are thinking it as only a DNS issue.
>
> But creating a sub-domain, means that the from needs to match too, therefore
> you may need to remap all your corporate email addresses from j...@iecc.com
> to j...@corp.ieec.com to separate
> -Original Message-
> From: MH Michael Hammer (5304) [mailto:mham...@ag.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 1:46 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy; Franck Martin
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
>
> > > But creating a sub-domain,
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 2:33 PM
> To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i=
> One little-known DKIM fact is that one does not need a different
> DNS record per d= domain. One strategically-chosen wild-card under
> _domainkey.example.com suffices (e.g. one per sub-organization).
Not really. The part to the left of _domainkey is the selector, so you
can wildcard selectors
> For #2, DKIM is most useful for positive identification, and i= would
> similarly be most useful for positive identification. Whether you say
> i=auntm...@bigisp.com or d=auntmary.bigisp.net, that provides useful
> information beyond the d=bigisp.com (or i=@bigisp.com).
Is this really true? My
>> But creating a sub-domain, means that the from needs to match too,
>
> Why? That's an ADSP thing, not a DKIM thing.
Right. For people who still want to use ADSP, you're welcome to use two
signatures.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Pl
On 4/4/11 1:59 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2011, at 1:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote
>> I think you are thinking it as only a DNS issue.
>>
>> But creating a sub-domain, means that the from needs to match too, therefore
>> you may need to remap all your corporate email addresses from j...@iecc
>
>
>
>http://postmaster.facebook.com/outbound
>
>Facebook is mixing up their corporate email with their users email...
>___
That's not true and nothing on that page suggests that we do.
___
NOTE WELL: This l
On Apr 2, 2011, at 12:02 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> OpenDKIM's statistics show that almost half of signatures use "i=", in
> contrast to how few used "g=" in other than the default way. Of those that
> do, only about 35% are using it in other than the default way. So that's at
> least 1
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: MH Michael Hammer (5304) [mailto:mham...@ag.com]
>>
But creating a sub-domain, means that the from needs to match too,
>>> Why? That's an ADSP thing, not a DKIM thing.
>>
>> I think his goal is to have it be a 1st party signatu
>
>
>
>http://postmaster.facebook.com/outbound
>
>Facebook is mixing up their corporate email with their users email...
>___
>NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
>http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
That's not true and nothing on that p
John R. Levine wrote:
>> Flip that around: I want to give positive warm fuzzies to mail from the
>> users that are authenticated by bigisp.com and are on my positive list.
>
> I believe that's what we call "human shields." Um, no. This whole model
> of bigisp sending a mixture of legit and forg
Ooops, sorry... I was dreaming you were using facebook.com for corp emails, but
I see you use fb.com
My mistake.
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Adkins"
To: "IETF DKIM WG"
Sent: Tuesday, 5 April, 2011 9:50:06 AM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
>
44 matches
Mail list logo
