Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> I asked my IDNA expert, who said that the definitive answer is "it
>>> depends". �He suggests our chair ask our AD to check with the IESG.
>> Our chair is asking our AD to check.
>
> We have the IESG's answer: we should change the reference to RFC 5890
> and change the text
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Douglas Otis wrote:
> One method to avoid look-alike or display-name attacks would be to sort
> messages into folders. A fairly common practice.
Users with the technical acumen to do such sorting are unlikely phish
victims. They might not immediately recognize a message as f
> While the majority of users within your borough may not care, a large
> population within Asia and elsewhere do. In fact, much of their email
> already violates RFC5322's ASCII-only requirements.
I have trouble reading this as other than "we're going to leapfrog
everything that EAI is doing
On 4/21/11 5:25 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> Use of A-labels within header fields supporting UTF-8 is a bad idea.
> Since DKIM is defined on RFC 5322 messages, and 5322 is ASCII-only, no
> header fields in a compliant message can contain UTF-8. I don't know
> why you keep repeating this uttetly
>> I asked my IDNA expert, who said that the definitive answer is "it
>> depends". He suggests our chair ask our AD to check with the IESG.
>
> Our chair is asking our AD to check.
We have the IESG's answer: we should change the reference to RFC 5890
and change the text to use A-labels, as John r
On 21/Apr/11 14:25, John R. Levine wrote:
>> Use of A-labels within header fields supporting UTF-8 is a bad idea.
>
> Since DKIM is defined on RFC 5322 messages, and 5322 is ASCII-only, no
> header fields in a compliant message can contain UTF-8.
It would be surprising if DKIM supported UTF-8 in
Verifiers need a way to get a common trust database.
One idea would to start a IETF Working Group for maintaining an
official standard DKIM-TRUST-BUNDLE.TXT file. For lack of a better
term, call it
DKIMVCT DKIM Verifier Common Trust
The DKIMVCT WG would decide
- Criteria for dom
> Use of A-labels within header fields supporting UTF-8 is a bad idea.
Since DKIM is defined on RFC 5322 messages, and 5322 is ASCII-only, no
header fields in a compliant message can contain UTF-8. I don't know why
you keep repeating this uttetly wrong stuff, but please stop now.
> Changing a
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> There has been no uptake at all in OpenDKIM for ATPS, and almost
> none is apparent with ADSP, although in the latter case our data
> can only give a range for adoption because we don't query when an
> author signature passes. I could tighten that down by running
On 4/20/11 5:02 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> Internationalized domain names MUST be encoded as Non-Reserved LDH,
>> A-Labels as described in RFC5891, or equivalent U-Labels.
>
> Repeating this bad idea doesn't make it a good idea,
>
> Besides being a bad idea on its own merits, this would without q
10 matches
Mail list logo
