On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:36 PM, wrote:
> Let's break this down. If we're going to include recipients in the DKIM
> signature, it seems we have at least three key design decisions to make:
> [...]
>
That's a pretty excellent summary. A couple of points:
I think you
Hi Rolf,
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld <
r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl> wrote:
> At the time SenderID was proposed, back in 2004 or something, the act of
> propagating header information into the transport stream was seen by many
> as a layering violation. The proposal of
On 14-11-16 14:00, John R Levine wrote:
[ resent with a reasonably correct date header ]
I can write this up as a draft if people think it's interesting.
Murray's draft puts the envelope recipients into the DKIM hash, which
means that the message sent to multiple MTAs be signed separately for
On 11/13/2016 1:50 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:> I've posted a draft
that attempts to address an attack that's begun to
appear with DKIM. Interestingly, we called it out as a possible
attack in RFC6376 and even RFC4871, but now it's apparently happening
and being annoying enough that people
On Monday, November 14, 2016 05:34:19 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Scott Kitterman
>
> wrote:
> > >Doesn't that presuppose point-to-point handling? The proposal here
> > >doesn't.
> >
> > Your proposal breaks all non-point-to-point
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 02:48:01PM +0900, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Martijn Grooten
> wrote:
>
> It isn't very clear to me how this proposal deals with receipients at
> different domains, including but not limited to blind