Re: [ietf-dkim] [dmarc-ietf] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts

2016-11-14 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
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

Re: [ietf-dkim] [dmarc-ietf] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts

2016-11-14 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
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

Re: [ietf-dkim] [dmarc-ietf] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts

2016-11-14 Thread Rolf E. Sonneveld
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

Re: [ietf-dkim] [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts

2016-11-14 Thread Hector Santos
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

Re: [ietf-dkim] [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts

2016-11-14 Thread Scott Kitterman
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

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts

2016-11-14 Thread Martijn Grooten
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