> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 3:24 PM
> To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] issue: Section 2.6/ 3.5 AUID/i= should have
> -Original Message-
> From: John R. Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 11:43 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] l= statistics was 23 again (sorry John) was Output
>
> >>> +---
> -Original Message-
> From: Rolf E. Sonneveld [mailto:r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl]
> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 1:48 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] l= statistics was 23 again (sorry John) was Output
>
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 3:33 PM
> To: Rolf E. Sonneveld
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] l= statistics was 23 again (sorry John) was
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 7:00 AM
> To: Hector Santos
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] l= statistics was 23 again (sorry John) was Outp
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 7:08 AM
> To: Alessandro Vesely
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output summary - Keep your Eye on the Priz
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Franck Martin
> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 9:32 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-08.txt
>
> Sorry if I jump
> -Original Message-
> From: Franck Martin [mailto:fmar...@linkedin.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 9:12 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-08.txt
>
> >> "such as a signi
-dkim-mailinglists-09.txt
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Keys Identified
> Mail Working Group of the IETF.
>
> Title : DKIM And Mailing Lists
> Author(s)
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:29 PM
> To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="
>
> So I'
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of John R. Levine
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 8:47 AM
> To: Barry Leiba
> Cc: DKIM Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-10
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 2:34 PM
> To: Barry Leiba
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM and mailing lists
>
> After all, that was the original
The next version out will fix this, in less than a month. After we have a few
months of data I might get a more accurate picture of relaxed body extension
results, etc.
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On
Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Tuesday
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of SM
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 12:16 AM
> To: i...@ietf.org
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (DKIM And
> Mailing Lists) to BCP
>
Hi SM,
By my read, the bulk of your com
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 3:22 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call:
> (DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP
>
> My reading
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 5:14 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Cc: IETF General Discussion Mailing List; Alessandro Vesely
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of John R. Levine
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 6:44 AM
> To: SM
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLM and C14N
>
> > Hi Hector,
> > At 15:20 14-05-2011, Hector Santos w
> -Original Message-
> From: Hector Santos [mailto:hsan...@isdg.net]
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 9:25 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLM and C14N
>
> > This is a software problem,
>
> You mean the MLM who is i
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 5:00 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Cc: i...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call:
> (DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 9:05 PM
> To: SM
> Cc: Barry Leiba; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call:
> (DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 7:56 PM
> To: Hector Santos
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLM and C14N
>
> > Do you know what is being asked?
>
> 1. We
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:00 AM
> To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations
>
> My guess is tha
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of J.D.
> Falk
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 5:35 AM
> To: IETF list; DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call:
> (DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP
>
> > I don't see that "automated mail robot
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 9:53 AM
> To:
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Section 3.7 s/content-hash/body-hash/?
>
> Version -10 says
>
> More formally, pseu
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 9:39 AM
> To: Michael Thomas
> Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:30 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations
>
> The collection you have is an aggregate
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Eiloart [mailto:i...@sussex.ac.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:39 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations
>
> > According to what we have, the biggest use
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 1:49 PM
> To: IETF-DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations
>
> Whatever the actual reason, since its not the defau
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Eiloart [mailto:i...@sussex.ac.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 4:00 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations
>
> Right, but you can't address that by examinin
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Ian Eiloart
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 3:21 AM
> To: John Levine
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations
>
> Probably true, but if the difference between
Can anyone remember why there's a SHOULD for the downgrade to 7-bit in RFC4871
Section 5.3, rather than a MUST? The likelihood of breakage is so high when
sending 8-bit data that DKIM almost becomes pointless without the upgrade.
Not advocating for this to be changed in -bis (yet), but someone'
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Rolf E. Sonneveld
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 2:33 PM
> To: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Certifying the DKIM public key?
>
> Hi, all,
>
> recently someone asked me
> -Original Message-
> From: John Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 7:20 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 8bit downgrades
>
> I think Pete's analysis is correct, but my adv
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 8:38 PM
> To: Pete Resnick
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 8bit downgrades
>
> 100%? That is extreme.
.
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 10:43 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 8bit downgrades
>
> Please refrain from passing the buck to the WG
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of John Levine
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 5:41 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Cc: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations
>
> >Could you get
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of John R. Levine
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 9:35 AM
> To: Scott Kitterman
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 8bit downgrades
>
> Do you have numbers to s
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 5:33 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations
>
> Let's make it be the right work.
>
> T
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 2:21 AM
> To: DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations
>
> Could you get the effect of this by including the
> Conte
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:12 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 8bit downgrades
>
> > Do you have numbers to show that broken si
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Thomas [mailto:m...@mtcc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 7:03 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] No signatures, bad signatures, cousin domains
>
> Heuristic based systems li
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Ian Eiloart
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:08 AM
> To: John R. Levine
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM Scouts, was 8bit downgrades
>
> I think the long term
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of John R. Levine
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 6:40 AM
> To: Ian Eiloart
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM Scouts, was 8bit downgrades
>
> Mailing lists have wor
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 12:21 PM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> In my experience with traditional discussion MLM
> -Original Message-
> From: John R. Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 1:29 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> If anyone's claiming that contributors'
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Franck Martin
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 1:13 PM
> To: Steve Atkins; DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> side note: do
> mail receivers tre
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 2:10 PM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> In that case the reputation of the MLM is poor, a
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:20 PM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> That's relying on an awful lot of vaporware in th
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:47 PM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> > It's not vapourware in general. Such feedback
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:15 PM
> To: Scott Kitterman; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> The oth
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 5:36 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> My experience is it varies a lot
> -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, b
> -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 canonicalizat
> -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
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 9:29 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations
>
> On 2
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 9:14 AM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations
>
> The most obvious thing that MLMs do that invalidate sig
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Ian Eiloart
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 2:41 AM
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-11.txt
>
> The change in 3.4.5 has introduce
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 8:13 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Certified DKIM verification
>
> Hi all,
> does anybody know about
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of John R. Levine
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 10:42 AM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-12.txt
>
> I'm confused. I though
> -Original Message-
> From: i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 12:08 PM
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-13.txt
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 2:43 AM
> To: DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] spam filtering 101, was DKIM expert group meeting
> for Dutch 'comply or explain'
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 12:13 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] spam filtering 101
>
> +1, revising RFC 2505, whose date is
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 9:20 AM
> To: DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Pete's review of 4871bis
>
> I agree that 8.14 is poorly written (and it was ev
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:56 AM
> To: Pete Resnick
> Cc: DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Pete's review of 4871bis
>
> If I missed it, I apologize, but
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 7:05 AM
> To: DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Pete's review of 4871bis
>
> The problem is that an apparently valid signature (
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 8:27 PM
> To: DKIM Mailing List
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Final update to 4871bis for working group review
>
> We have a week. Murra
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 9:32 AM
> To: Charles Lindsey
> Cc: DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Final update to 4871bis for working group review
>
> As Pete
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 3:09 AM
> To: DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Final update to 4871bis for working group review
>
> The signer most certainly C
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 4:56 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Final update to 4871bis for working group review
>
> I'd s/t
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 6:32 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Final update to 4871bis for working group review
>
> I'm worki
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:44 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Final update to 4871bis for working group review
>
> I agree i
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:31 PM
> To: DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Final update to 4871bis for working group review
>
> I think Murray is wrong. T
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Douglas Otis
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 6:47 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Final update to 4871bis for working group review
>
> Unfortunatel
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 3:59 AM
> To: DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Final update to 4871bis for working group review
>
> > My favourite counterexample
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 3:52 AM
> To: DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Final update to 4871bis for working group review
>
> 1. The fact that DKIM choose
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Michael Deutschmann
> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 12:53 AM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Doublefrom language should be in ADSP, not core
>
> The attack only matt
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 6:46 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Doublefrom language should be in ADSP, not core
>
> I think we s
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey
> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 6:00 AM
> To: DKIM
> Cc: Pete Resnick
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Final update to 4871bis for working group review
>
> Implemento
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 8:39 PM
> To: Charles Lindsey; DKIM
> Cc: Pete Resnick
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Final update to 4871
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:52 AM
> To: DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Final update to 4871bis for working group review
>
> > "Agents that evaluate or ap
Hi all,
This got approved by the IESG. Note that it is slightly different than the
last time it was discussed here, courtesy of some suggested changes during IESG
evaluation.
OpenDKIM has already implemented the revised version and is thus available for
interop testing if anyone wants to try
FYI
-Original Message-
From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:59 AM
To: ietf-annou...@ietf.org; rfc-d...@rfc-editor.org
Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
Subject: RFC 6541 on Dom
FYI, in case anyone wants to comment.
-Original Message-
From: marf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:marf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:58 AM
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: m...@ietf.org
Subject: [marf] Last Call: (Extensions
to DKIM for Failure Reporting) t
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Chris Lamont Mankowski <
makerofthing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I realize my last message talked about TLS-OBC for SMTP but didn't preface
> it with any information on how I see how it can replace, or compliment SPF
> in a given situation. First, does anyone know of a
And you thought this list was dead.
I was asked to consult recently on some DKIM questions raised by a customer
of a former employer. The questions involved the meaning of "t=" in DKIM
keys and the text in RFC6376. The focus of this tag has always been, to
the best of my recollection, the notion
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:23 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> I've opened a ticket to arrange that "t=y" suppresses any positive impact
>> domain reputation has in the next version of OpenDKIM, as an experiment.
>>
>
> I'm inclined to leave well enough alone. That wouldn't have been an
> unreasonabl
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:26 AM, Richard Dawe
wrote:
>
> Do you think that DMARC provides a better way of testing your DKIM
> signatures than DKIM's t=y? E.g.: "p=none" DMARC policy.
>
>
>
I don't understand what you're after here. How would a mail receiver apply
"p=none" as different from handli
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> There seems like there are many things wrong with this sort of
> "helpfulness". If a given selector is dodgy, the reputation system
> should figure that out for itself. Believing even a vaguely
> positive-assertion from the source is almost
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> "Should't have been signed by us" clearly can't mean that someone
> stole the private key or otherwise hacked things, so you're saying,
> "Our processes might not be set up right, and we might be signing crap
> sent by bad guys. Give us a brea
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Here are two small tweaks that might correct things:
>
> y This domain is testing DKIM. Verifiers MUST NOT treat messages
> from Signers in testing mode differently from unsigned email.
> This covers both successful
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Roland Turner <
roland.tur...@trustsphere.com> wrote:
> This appears to be the inverse of the use case that was originally put
> forward ("we're concerned that we're signing rubbish, please disregard
> signatures made with this selector"); the very case that you'r
Colleagues,
(with apologies for the cross-posting if you get more than one copy of this)
As you may have seen already, I'm working on a revision to RFC5451.
A Proposed Standard "bis" effort always benefits from describing extant
implementations. I know about the ones I've written, and about som
At the IETF meeting in Atlanta, Tim Draegen presented a proposal for DMARC,
which is an email authentication and reporting layer atop SPF and DKIM.
The externally-developed proposal is now in widespread deployment by a
number of large-scale providers. The group that developed it is seeking to
brin
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 6/18/2013 7:18 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
> > I always thought it would be a nice follow-on to DKIM to provide a way
> > for a site to specify how that site was using i=; that is, to provide
> > some clarity and comprehension for that value. F
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Michael Deutschmann <
mich...@talamasca.ocis.net> wrote:
> (I have deployed DKIM alone senderside, but that's just to keep in
> practice in case someone invents an accessory protocol that's actually
> sane. Allowing me to declare that all mail bearing my RFC821 MA
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 9:21 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
> What I'm asking for is nothing like SES. I want the signature to be
>> based on the envelope MAIL FROM:, but it is still the body that gets
>> signed. No VERPing is called for. ...
>>
>
> Where can we read the draft?
>
>
+1. I pledge ope
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Michael Deutschmann <
mich...@talamasca.ocis.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> > Well, not really. MAIL FROM: is only visible after delivery, so to
> > avoid dangling signatures one should store its value in some other
> > header field o
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Michael Deutschmann <
mich...@talamasca.ocis.net> wrote:
> Your question about drafts has two possible implications. The first is
> "I'm not going to pay any attention to Michael until he takes up RFC
> lawyering." In which case I can't help you.
>
My problem is t
If the message is totally empty or consists only of CRLF sequences, or not
even that, then the "l=" value should be zero since they would all be
ignored and not fed to the hash; the total number of bytes fed to the hash
would be zero. I suggest reaching out to Gmail to find out what's going on.
-
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Pawel Lesnikowski
wrote:
> There are few details I'd like to clarify.
>
> Body hash for this message is correctly computed by the sender.
> Entire signature of this message in fact valid - this is why Port25,
> Gmail, and Mail.dll validate DKIM signature with 'pass'
601 - 700 of 741 matches
Mail list logo
