Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again

2011-05-27 Thread MH Michael Hammer (5304)
-Original Message- From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim- boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:36 PM To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again On Thursday, May 26, 2011 07:40:17 PM

Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again

2011-05-27 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On 26/May/11 23:52, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: From: On Behalf Of Franck Martin 2) do we need a mechanism to alert the receiving MTA that you have subscribed to a mailing list, and all messages should pass through? Yes, desperately. Certainly a possible feature, but it seems like it won't

Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again

2011-05-27 Thread John R. Levine
2) do we need a mechanism to alert the receiving MTA that you have subscribed to a mailing list, and all messages should pass through? Yes, desperately. Certainly a possible feature, but it seems like it won't scale very well. Why not? If I were a spammer, I would tell the victim's MTA

Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again

2011-05-27 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
-Original Message- From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 9:08 AM To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again Certainly a possible feature, but it

Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations

2011-05-27 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On 25/May/11 20:23, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 5/25/2011 9:59 AM, John Levine wrote: The idea is to anticipate any unknown signature breaker. I'm pretty sure that's specifically out of scope. And I promise that whatever you do, short of wrapping the whole message in opaque armor, I can come up

Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations

2011-05-27 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On 25/May/11 18:42, Hector Santos wrote: Alessandro Vesely wrote: Yes, dot is one of the punctuation characters that should be removed. This turned out to be a bug in our beta code, revamped to support I/O completion ports and the code for undotting of the leading dot (per RFC5321 4.5.2)

Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations

2011-05-27 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
-Original Message- From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 10:09 AM To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations By introducing a loose canonicalization we

Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again

2011-05-27 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
-Original Message- From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 10:44 PM To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again This sounds like you are missing a point

Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations

2011-05-27 Thread John R. Levine
By introducing a loose canonicalization we may learn whether signature survivability affects DKIM adoption. Feel free to do some experiments. One of the reasons that DKIM has had relatively few implementation surprises is that we already knew how DK worked. Regards, John Levine,

[ietf-dkim] Triple opt-in, was MLMs and signatures again

2011-05-27 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On 27/May/11 18:29, John R. Levine wrote: 2) do we need a mechanism to alert the receiving MTA that you have subscribed to a mailing list, and all messages should pass through? Yes, desperately. Certainly a possible feature, but it seems like it won't scale very well. Why not? If I were

Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again

2011-05-27 Thread Hector Santos
John R. Levine wrote: These days most subscriptions are entered on a web page, and if you're lucky the mailer will send a confirmation message with a URL that sends the subscriber back to the web page. Where's the MTA going to get the subscriber info? See below The challenges in

Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again

2011-05-27 Thread Hector Santos
MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: Remember, it's not static, it's dynamic. What was a non-phished domain yesterday could be a phished domain today or tomorrow. DKIM isn't a magic bullet, it's one more tool in the toolbox. I've found that in combination with SPF it works very nicely on double

Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again

2011-05-27 Thread Hector Santos
Hector Santos wrote: John R. Levine wrote: These days most subscriptions are entered on a web page, and if you're lucky the mailer will send a confirmation message with a URL that sends the subscriber back to the web page. Where's the MTA going to get the subscriber info? See below

Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations

2011-05-27 Thread Hector Santos
John R. Levine wrote: By introducing a loose canonicalization we may learn whether signature survivability affects DKIM adoption. Feel free to do some experiments. One of the reasons that DKIM has had relatively few implementation surprises is that we already knew how DK worked.

Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again

2011-05-27 Thread Hector Santos
Hector Santos wrote: MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: Remember, it's not static, it's dynamic. What was a non-phished domain yesterday could be a phished domain today or tomorrow. DKIM isn't a magic bullet, it's one more tool in the toolbox. I've found that in combination with SPF it works