> I agree. As a receiver, I laugh in the face of the very notion that am
> obligated to do anything with a message other than as I will.
Which means you're also given the option to know what the signer's notion of
the signature's validity time is. And you're free to ignore it too.
If the signer
> Then we're screwed, since it'll be impossible to do anything at all
> that makes it more likely to get your mail delivered.
That's still blurring the line between a verifier and an assessor. We can only
make educated guesses about the latter, but we have substantial influence on
the former.
> DKIM is not limited to just email. Even ADSP failed to limit its
> assertions to just email. As such, what should unspecified message
> formats contain?
One would think the "unspecified message formats" would have defining documents
someplace that identify header fields that are supposed to
> Without this feature, people may soon find their inbox flooded by
> bogus messages indicating the use of new algorithm, that could have
> been mitigated extensively by having the key feature.
As opposed to what? What would you expect a verifier or assessor to do if the
hash used to sign was no
> WTF is the point of inserting an A-R header if you are not willing to
> take responsibility for what you have done by signing it?
>
> And why should anyone else believe your A-R if you have omitted that
> elementary step?
Because, if you've followed the RFC defining it, the border MTA has remov
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:13 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org >> DKIM IETF WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- k: Key type
>
>
> The issue of A-R headers being trusted only when signed by DKIM runs
> counter to their intended use.
That's not necessarily true.
You're making hard assertions about a fuzzy situation. DKIM signing might work
just fine in certain installations. That's why RFC5451 suggests doing this
withou
> >> TXT RR tags
> >>
> >> h: Acceptable hash algorithms
> >>
> >> The spec needs to define the supported set of hash algorithms. There
> >> may be some value in a signer being able to state that they're using
> >> an algorithm that isn't supported, perhaps.
> >>
> >> But unless there is a vi
> Disagree. This feature is about better informing recipients as to the
> status of the signature.
For the sake of enumerating implementations, the current libdkim implementation
does make a distinction between a signature that failed to verify and one that
couldn't be verified because the key'
> Another way to look at it is that k= is useless, but it's not harmful,
> so it'd be more productive to argue about the warts that are both
> useless and harmful.
I don't know that it's completely useless, but I'll defer to Jon on this point:
Is the actual cost of parsing "k=rsa" from the key an
> -Original Message-
> From: Douglas Otis [mailto:do...@mail-abuse.org]
>
> It seems suitable to either reject or annotate a stern warning, those
> messages where the domain refutes the algorithm claimed in the DKIM
> signature.
Doug,
I'm still not convinced, but you have me thinking abo
> > By selecting specific A-R headers to remove, header content might be
> > processed post delivery, and then appear to match against some trusted
> > domain.
I believe the Security Considerations of RFC5451 covers this adequately.
> For sure, individual recipients may wish to check signatures e
> The use of the DKIM l=, z= and x= features provide a means for
> recipients to separately evaluate DKIM signatures without reliance on
> intermediary assessors. In addition, the A-R header does not capture
> the IP address when assessing path registration protocols, which means
> that safe reci
> In addition, acceptance of indirect A-R records should be handled with
> caution. Keep in mind that A-R headers themselves are not secure,
> and that trust in "authserv-id" (that recipients may have been asked
> to enter into their MUA to enable annotations) need to have originated
> from their
I think I've come around to +1 on keeping "h=" in key records.
-MSK
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
> Here's what I remember from the original discussion of h= and k= in
> the key record.
>
> First, part of the idea was to have them both there, to make things
> parallel: "This key is used for this crypto suite."
> [...]
I'm neutral on either keeping or removing this one. It seems to me an RSA
There’s a draft proposal out to add a new tag to keys for doing this. See
draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting.
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On
Behalf Of Franck Martin
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 6:04 AM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-d
> DKIM's purpose has been lost with the continued out of scope undefined
> reputation modeling. A concern raised over and over again, Assessment |
> Reputation - wink wink, same thing when it come to coding it. Word
> smithing does not solve implementation issues.
I don't agree at all with these
> >This update resolves that confusion. It defines
> > additional, semantic
> > labels for the two values, clarifies their nature and
> > specifies their
> > relationship. More specifically, it clarifies that the
> > identifier
> > intended for delivery to the a
> OK, so now I guess I'm confused. My understanding is that if "i=" isn't
> specified it takes the value of "d=", so I'm not clear how it can be
> undefined?
Maybe the wording of the errata draft could be improved (I'll propose new text
shortly if I can), but here's my understanding:
I believe
> Are you trying to say?
>
> DKIM_RESULT = DKIM_VERIFY(ENVELOPE, PAYLOAD)
> FINAL_RESULT = DKIM_ASSESSOR(DKIM_RESULT, DKIM_TAG_QUERY("D") )
> <<-- minimum requirement?
I don't fully understand your notation, but I think what I'm saying is that a
minimal DKIM implementation provides w
> BTW, What is the definition of an Application Programming Interface
> and what portion of DKIM is like an API definition.
I'm quite comfortable with drawing an implicit "you must be this tall" line and
assuming someone reading this, i.e. an implementer (e.g. YOU), will know what
an API is.
Or
> So, here's a suggested merging of the two:
>
>This currently leaves signers and assessors with the potential for
> making different interpretations between the two identifiers and may
> lead to interoperability problems. A signer could intend one to be
> used f
> If you going to this level, you need to be more specific with software
> engineering terminologies and how it applies to SMTP. Murray's API is
> not going to be same as MY API or that guys API and it may not be just
> in C or C++, but in multiple of languages, and the API be COM
> interface, a .
> Any reputation assessment system should not:
>
> 1) limit what is to be assessed.
The proposed text does not put any limits on what gets assessed. If an
assessor wants more information, it is free to use a verifier that provides
more information.
> 2) allow inclusion of un-assessed informat
> You have generalize ASSESSORS to have two minimum inputs:
>
>BOOLEAN (DKIM verification result)
>STRING (DKIM D= value)
Correct.
> 1) Why?
There is use in specifying an API here. Every other protocol we've named so
far as examples have an API, whether de facto from lots of experienc
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 12:09 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Escaping things in key/ADSP records
>
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 6:34 PM
> To: DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Escaping things in key/ADSP records
>
> [...]
Nice work! However:
> If anyone
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 9:59 AM
> To: DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Escaping things in key/ADSP records
>
> For typical DKIM users though, commentin
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Otis
> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 8:26 AM
> To: hector
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org; MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM adoption
>
> Sinc
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of kim d
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 6:39 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Cc: d...@spam3.gm.transpac.fr
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] DKIM V 2.4.O - SSP and timeout
>
> Hi
>
> (
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Franck Martin
> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:56 PM
> To: J.D. Falk
> Cc: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter update proposal
>
> Is the goal of a spec
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 6:56 AM
> To: Franck Martin
> Cc: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter update proposal
>
> DKIM might or might no
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 8:19 AM
> To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
> Cc: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Third-party "authorization"
>
>
> Per
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 7:24 PM
> To: Daniel Black
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from t
> -Original Message-
> From: i...@sussex.ac.uk [mailto:i...@sussex.ac.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 4:53 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy; John R. Levine; Daniel Black
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data fr
> -Original Message-
> From: HLS [mailto:sant9...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of hector
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:06 AM
> To: Ian Eiloart
> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; Daniel Black; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of hector
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:20 AM
> To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] brand protection, was Is anyone using ADSP?
> -Original Message-
> From: HLS [mailto:sant9...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of hector
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:30 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: i...@sussex.ac.uk; Daniel Black; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Thomas [mailto:m...@mtcc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:19 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: i...@sussex.ac.uk; John R. Levine; Daniel Black; ietf-
> d...@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP?
> -Original Message-
> From: HLS [mailto:sant9...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of hector
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:53 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: Michael Thomas; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from th
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of John Levine
> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 1:31 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Cc: barryle...@computer.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] How about that DKIM charter update p
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Black
> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 6:00 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter update proposal
>
> I think supporting data collect
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 9:53 AM
> To: Daniel Black
> Cc: barryle...@computer.org; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Deployment G
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 10:42 AM
> To: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter update proposal
>
> > I'd be fine with doing that through th
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:01 AM
> To: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter update proposal
>
> Pasted below is my proposal for an update
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Mark Delany
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:42 AM
> To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
> Cc: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM on envelope level
>
> If the proposal is an
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Delany [mailto:markd+d...@yahoo-inc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:31 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM on envelope level
>
> > Do you mean the serv
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of hector
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 7:44 PM
> To: John Levine
> Cc: barryle...@computer.org; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Interesting Dupe Signatures
> -Original Message-
> From: John R. Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 10:15 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Interesting Dupe Signatures
>
> I don't see much benefit for sav
> -Original Message-
> From: HLS [mailto:sant9...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of hector
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 11:00 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: barryle...@computer.org; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Interesting Dupe Signatures
>
> C
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:02 PM
> To: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Collecting re-chartering questions
>
> 1. Advance DKIM base to Draft Standard
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Tony Hansen
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 7:45 AM
> To: pasi.ero...@nokia.com
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM errata 1385 (TXT records)
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 11:32 AM
> To: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Proposed new charter
>
> Here is a charter proposal for us to bash. It cover
OK, dates:
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 11:32 AM
> To: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Proposed new charter
>
> [...]
> +++ New Work +++
> The worki
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 9:47 AM
> To: Mark Delany
> Cc: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Broken signature analysis
>
> But I guess this all
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Mark Delany
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 11:00 AM
> To: Michael Thomas
> Cc: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Broken signature analysis
>
> I wasn't thinking o
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 11:53 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: Mark Delany; IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Broken signature analysis
>
> The previous interop event target
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 9:40 AM
> To: Eliot Lear
> Cc: Patrik Fältström; IETF-DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposed new charter
>
> So, as Eliot asks: D
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 11:32 AM
> To: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Proposed new charter
>
> [...]
>
> 2. Collect data on the deployment, inte
--- Begin Message ---
On Monday in the APPAREA meeting, I mentioned some upcoming work regarding the
Authentication-Results: header field. I've split the two changes I'm seeking
to make into separate drafts because one is fairly trivial and only requires an
IANA registration action to complete
I've got as a task for the next major OpenDKIM release a reworking of our
statistics collection component. This is something that's off by default; one
must specifically enable it both at compile time and at run time.
What I'm considering is a change to the code so that it collects a larger set
Maybe, or at least partly. It depends on your reputation scheme’s secret sauce.
But reputation in particular is out of scope for this working group.
From: Franck Martin [mailto:fra...@genius.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:42 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: IETF-DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf
> -Original Message-
> From: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 12:13 PM
> To: 'MH Michael Hammer (5304)'; Al Iverson; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Why mailing lists should strip DKIM signatures
>
> Even without thinking
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 11:22 AM
> To: Al Iverson; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Why mailing lists should strip DKIM signat
> -Original Message-
> From: John Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 2:34 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Why mailing lists should strip DKIM signatures
>
> >If I'm running a m
> -Original Message-
> From: John R. Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 4:04 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Why mailing lists should strip DKIM signatures
>
> I am about 99% certain t
Someone on the opendkim-users list has pointed out that DKIM signatures are
being invalidated when re-mailed through one particular MLM that rewrites
Content-Type: so that its value is all lowercase. Obviously this is a problem
for DKIM since even "relaxed" requires nothing other than spacing c
> -Original Message-
> From: John Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 9:55 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM vs. MIME
>
> Although I see the point in this particular case, it seems
> -Original Message-
> From: McDowell, Brett [mailto:bmcdow...@paypal.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:37 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: John Levine; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Wrong Discussion - was Why mailing lists
> should
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of John Levine
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:24 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] mailing list doc, was Wrong Discussion - was
> Why mailing lists sh
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Macdonald [mailto:macfisher...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:05 AM
> To: McDowell, Brett
> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Wrong Discussion - was Why mailing lists
> should
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Otis
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 12:18 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Wrong Discussion - was Why mailing lists
> should strip DKIM sign
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of McDowell, Brett
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 12:29 PM
> To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Wrong Discussion - was Why mailing lis
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 6:03 AM
> To: Ian Eiloart
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] list vs contributor signatures, was Wrong
> Discussion
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:55 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Broken signatures, was Why mailing lists
> should strip the
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Macdonald
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 8:32 AM
> To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Wrong Discussion - was Why mailing lists
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 4:20 PM
> To: Al Iverson
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] besides mailing lists...
>
> The reply-to is a good
> I don't see how this would work with mailing lists. A domain owner
> would have to know all the lists his users may want to be on. His
> users would need to know to notify him when they joined a new list.
+1. Doesn't seem scalable to me.
___
NOTE WEL
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Otis
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 8:59 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] forward to friend, was besides mailing
> lists...
>
> > +1. Does
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Michael Ströder
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 4:51 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Clarification needed for "Computing the Message
> Hashes"
>
> HI!
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Thomas [mailto:m...@mtcc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 9:48 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: Michael Ströder; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Clarification needed for "Computing the
> Message Hashes&
I've posted an individual submission draft that attempts to capture some of the
consensus and some appropriate guidance around the use of DKIM in the context
of mailing lists. I don't propose that it's final at all, but merely an anchor
point for further discussion.
http://datatracker.ietf.org
forwarding fall under the aliasing-style MLMs
as the mechanism is identical. Perhaps we could say so here.
From: Franck Martin [mailto:fra...@genius.com]
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 1:43 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of J.D. Falk
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:28 PM
> To: IETF-DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
>
> That brings up the strange question of what "supp
> -Original Message-
> From: McDowell, Brett [mailto:bmcdow...@paypal.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 9:51 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
>
> I'm an IETF newbie, so
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of J.D. Falk
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:22 PM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
>
> On May 19, 2010, at 7:53 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 8:32 AM
> To: ietf-dkim
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Charter update
>
> This charter and milestones imply that we should probably re
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:42 PM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
>
> >> Not at all. If we can agree that lists should
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:18 AM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft
>
> > Or are you saying that it sho
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of John R. Levine
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:47 AM
> To: Brett McDowell
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] list vs contributor signatures, was Wrong
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 6:22 AM
> To: Roland Turner
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] bad mail blowback
>
> So the question is, in my mind, should
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Thomas [mailto:m...@mtcc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 7:49 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] bad mail blowback
>
> Considering that this is really a 5822 level problem,
> -Original Message-
> From: SM [mailto:s...@resistor.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 10:06 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Cc: Michael Thomas; Murray S. Kucherawy
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] bad mail blowback
>
> At 07:53 27-05-10, Murray S. Kucheraw
Congrats, team!
-Original Message-
From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:27 AM
To: ietf-annou...@ietf.org; rfc-d...@rfc-editor.org
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org; rfc-edi...@rfc-edito
”, which is defined earlier in the
document.
For 5.2 and 5.4, I’ve added some clarifying text.
Thanks for the thorough review!
-MSK
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:l...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 4:36 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists &quo
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Black [mailto:daniel.s...@internode.on.net]
> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 2:10 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org; Murray S. Kucherawy
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft review
>
> Comments on draft-kucherawy-dki
The masochistic side of me spent some time going through this entire thread
over the long weekend to fish out the pieces that can be folded into the lists
draft. This is a summary of that sifting, which I'm using to generate the -01
draft.
Please, folks, change the Subject: field for the ADSP-
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Otis
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:38 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft review
>
> See section 4.3, third paragraph:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of John R. Levine
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 2:11 PM
> To: Brett McDowell
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] the danger of ADSP, was list vs contributor
>
> The ba
101 - 200 of 741 matches
Mail list logo
