-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
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
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
-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
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
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)
-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
-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
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
15 matches
Mail list logo