Hi, Dave,
On 14-02-18 20:24, Dave Crocker wrote:
Folks,
I've been very long remiss in responding to a request that the
ietf-dkim mailing list re-locate, to home on the ietf.org site. That
process is now (finally) underway.
It is being done in stages, to try to mitigate against any loss 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
Hi, Eliot,
On 28-10-16 14:02, Eliot Lear wrote:
Hi Jon,
On 10/28/16 12:29 AM, Jon Callas wrote:
I'd like to suggest that it may be a good idea to increase the upper
value to 4096 or even 8192, to ensure that the standard is compatible
with best practices going forward.
I don't object to
Hi, all,
just FYI: the European Commission has started a public consultation
round on a number of standards. To quote from the objective paragraph:
/*Objective of the consultation*/
/The //*fast evolution in the ICT domain *//and the continuous
emergence of new, global and innovative
On 06/20/2013 03:05 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
Now on the other hand, if an administrative domain wanted to go to the
trouble to authenticate down to the user level, we didn't want to prevent
that, either. The primary audience for DKIM includes regulated industries,
after all.
Seems to me
On 06/20/2013 12:59 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Rolf E. Sonneveld:
On 06/20/2013 03:05 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
Now on the other hand, if an administrative domain wanted to go to the
trouble to authenticate down to the user level, we didn't want to prevent
that, either. The primary audience
that, and trust
them to do it right, I can't depend on it,
Rolf E. Sonneveld:
Why do you raise this concern for i= and not for d=? Simply
looking at d= we can't differentiate between a Good Guy and a
Bad Guy, until we have built some history/reputation for that
particular d= domain. Why wouldn't the same
Hi, all
on June 17th 2011
(http://lists.opendkim.org/archive/opendkim/users/2011/06/1173.html) I
sent a mail to the ietf-dkim list about an upcoming expert meeting in
relation to the submission of DKIM for the 'Comply or Explain'
standards list, used by the Dutch government and government
One final note from me, as I want to state my current position regarding
4871bis, with respect to Last Call.
As the receiving verifier has all the information to _reliably_ [0]
determine which combination(s) [1] of From [2] and DKIM-Signature
verifies correctly, it has the means to provide any
On 6/27/11 9:10 PM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'DKIM And Mailing Lists'
(draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-12.txt) as a BCP
Murray, congratulations! Keep up the good work!
/rolf
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates
Dear all,
after some off-list conversation with Dave he suggested I might want to
send this to the list. I apologize in advance if this message does not
apply to you. I also apologize if you get this message twice, when you
are subscribed to both ietf-dkim and the opendkim list.
The Dutch
On 5/24/11 1:30 PM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
On 23 May 2011, at 23:09, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
On 5/23/11 6:35 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
In the real world signature reliability matters. If a domain signs mail
as a rule then an absent or broken signature will be treated as
suspicious.
I hope
On 5/23/11 6:35 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
In the real world signature reliability matters. If a domain signs mail
as a rule then an absent or broken signature will be treated as
suspicious.
I hope you're wrong, since that violates an explicit SHOULD in RFC 4871,
and in my experience, most
On 5/13/11 8:12 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
[...]
In such cases where the submission fails that test, the receiver or
verifier SHOULD discard the message but return an SMTP success code,
i.e. accept the message but drop it without delivery. An SMTP
rejection of such
On 5/9/11 11:39 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-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]
On 5/6/11 4:35 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
http://www.opendkim.org/stats/report.html#l_tag
You can see the count that have l= smaller than the final message size as
well as the l=0 ones, and how many of those passed or failed.
That's out of 155972 signatures that used l=, and 4.36M total
Hi, Murray,
On 5/6/11 8:50 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-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
On 5/6/11 8:43 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
+--+--+
| count(*) | mailing_list |
+--+--+
|77246 |0 |
|78853 |1 |
+--+--+
That's just strange. Most of the l= signatures don't cover the whole
body, and
On 5/5/11 1:52 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
Murray wrote:
You want AUID and RFC5322.From added to the Output Requirements
section explicitly.
BTW, while RFC5322.From will satisfy requirements, I am proposing a
new ODID identity (RFC5322.From.domain) since that is whats already
extracted by APIs
On 5/5/11 1:07 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I think in the early days of DKIM most people assumed DKIM would become a
protocol where:
* the body hash and header hash, using various header fields, certifies the
DKIM signature and
* the DKIM signature certifies the body and header fields,
On 5/5/11 1:36 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 05/04/2011 03:55 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Well, I think you both are right in reading what my concern/objection
against 4871bis is. And maybe you're also right in that RFC4871
wasn't that much different of RFC4871bis.
I think in the early
On 5/4/11 1:25 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Rolf E. Sonneveld [mailto:r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:56 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output summary - proposing ODID Originating Domain
Identity
On 5/4/11 3:29 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/4/2011 1:23 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
But then DKIM is only authenticating the d= and we should no longer
position
DKIM as being 'effective in defending against the fraudulent use of
origin
addresses'.
Besides your rather unusual sense
Just a short note. Excuse me for not responding, I've been away from my
office for a couple of hours due to the fact that we have today Memorial
Day, at which we remember the WW-II victims. I'm catching up reading all
contributions...
/rolf
On 5/4/11 10:57 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On 5/4/11 11:32 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/4/2011 2:29 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I should also expand that this entire situation started with Crocker
insisting that we must choose between between i= and d=
as The Output. It was a false dilemma then, and it remains
a false dilemma. And as
On 5/4/11 7:48 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/4/2011 9:15 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
My read is that Rolf is objecting to RFC4871bis on the grounds that
it conflicts with RFC4686. (He can and should correct me if I'm wrong.)
If his concerns would be satisfied by a change (perhaps an
On 5/2/11 10:22 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Rolf E. Sonneveld
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 1:14 PM
To:dcroc...@bbiw.net
Cc:ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim
On 5/1/11 6:55 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
[...]
In other words, DKIM has nothing to do with the rfc5321.From field, and
therefore it is entirely inappropriate -- that is, out of scope -- for the
specification to suggest dealing with it.
You mean 5322.From?
And how should we read par. 3.2.2 of
On 4/29/11 12:48 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Rolf E. Sonneveld [mailto:r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:12 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output summary
b) If an application
On 4/28/11 12:28 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Exception: I am aware that Charles and Doug want the issue re-opened.
Anyone else who wants to see it re-opened and discussed again may post
a message to this thread that says Consensus needs to be
re-evaluated. I will reconsider this if there's a
On 4/28/11 7:38 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: MH Michael Hammer (5304) [mailto:mham...@ag.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:04 AM
To: John R. Levine
Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Output summary
The fact that
On 4/28/11 9:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Rolf E. Sonneveld [mailto:r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:01 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output summary
Right. I strongly
On 4/27/11 3:56 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
What is surreal about this brush back to make a SIMPLE change is that
it touches base with the often stated concern about DKIM DNS
management complexities as one of the barriers for adoption.
In a perfect DKIM spec world, this section should cover the
Hi, Murray,
On 4/26/11 8:25 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Folks,
With four days left in the WGLC for our remaining two documents, there
are several items still open in the trackers. Only items that are
either minor/editorial in nature or those that get working group
consensus will make
On 4/27/11 12:47 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
-1. I suggest to add clarifications etc. to a future update of
RFC5863 (deployment and operations document).
So you agree clarification is required but not for RFC4871bis?
No. Just: IF clarification is required, it has
On 4/27/11 11:39 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: John R. Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:27 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Output summary
If you believe that, the output should
On 4/26/11 8:20 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
I will repeat that this issue was discussed at length, and
working-group rough consensus was reached. None of the recent
discussion brings up any new points that merit re-opening it, nor is
there sufficient support for re-opening it to cause me to think
On 4/6/11 10:53 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
On 4/6/2011 4:18 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Apr 6, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 04/06/2011 12:34 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Apr 6, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
\
The alternative would be very squirrelly when you think
of
On 4/4/11 10:59 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Apr 4, 2011, at 1:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
I think you are thinking it as only a DNS issue.
But creating a sub-domain, means that the from needs to match too, therefore
you may need to remap all your corporate email addresses from j...@iecc.com
On 4/1/11 1:31 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
I had the feeling that Y! was using the local part of i= to do
differentiation in reputation. ie various streams within the same domain.
I know the spec intent recommends, different domains for different streams,
but then
Intuition would tell
On 4/1/11 9:18 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
I think it can be immensely useful if the list plainly says /why/ the
WG closes. As Rolf noted, DKIM is not (yet) a well refined protocol
that any of us would recommend his grandma to make use of.
If that's the requirement, I think that pretty much
Hi,
On 3/28/11 3:34 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
As you'll see from the minutes (available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/80/materials.html ), consensus in
the room and among remote participants at the IETF 80 DKIM session was
to close the working group after the 4871bis and mailng-lists
Hi, Murray,
On 2/8/11 8:31 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
A few statistics OpenDKIM captured recently that might amuse some of you:
Interesting figures!
1) There's a slow but steady increase in signed message rates:
http://www.opendkim.org/stats/report.html#signing_trend (ignore the
Hi, Murray,
On 1/12/11 1:53 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Hi Rolf,
I think your concerns are reasonable. But I think the marketing of
DKIM can be managed and maintained as it has its own momentum now;
this may be true for the US, I'm not sure about other regions of the
world. The
Dave,
On 1/7/11 9:58 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
Here's the proposal that Barry just announced, for splitting the DKIM
specification into a DKIM-specific portion and an underlying, more generic
portion that could be re-purposed for other services. It's current working
acronym is DOSETA.
On 11/24/10 10:44 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
On 11/24/10 11:38 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:57:58AM -0800, Douglas Otis allegedly wrote:
On 11/24/10 9:01 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 11/23/2010 3:14 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
Actually, they're complementary. In places where
On 11/1/10 6:01 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Graham Murray
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 11:51 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Some responsibility
Hi,
unfortunately I didn't have the time to do a full review of 4871bis, but
there's one thing I'd like to draw attention to.
In the original text of RFC4871 DKIM was described as:
DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) defines a mechanism by which email
messages can be cryptographically
Hi, Murray,
On 10/25/10 6:21 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
OpenDKIM now has enough data to make some interesting observations
about signatures and MIME.
As far as MIME encodings go (only the outermost encoding was
counted), there was a pretty common theme:
binary failed 4% of the time
On 10/25/10 1:31 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Hi, Murray,
On 10/25/10 6:21 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
OpenDKIM now has enough data to make some interesting observations
about signatures and MIME.
As far as MIME encodings go (only the outermost encoding was
counted), there was a pretty
On 10/20/10 9:30 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:55 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim]
On 10/16/10 4:50 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/16/2010 10:26 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
Yes, it ties an identifier to a bag of bits, and yes it specifies what
those bits are, but it really does deal only with those bits and not
(necessarily) the entire message.
Technically. you are correct.
On 10/15/10 10:58 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of MH Michael Hammer (5304)
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 1:52 PM
To: Bill Oxley @ Cox; dcroc...@bbiw.net
Cc:
On 10/13/10 3:29 PM, John Levine wrote:
- In order to make use of ADSP, Y needs to change which MTA it's
using. This is almost certainly an expensive effort.
- Y simply can't use ADSP.
- The DKIM reporting extensions should have a flag that says DSNs
should not
On 10/04/2010 10:41 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Thus begins working group last call on the DKIM implementation and
interoperability report, draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-02:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report
The working group last call will run through
On 10/05/2010 04:07 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Hi Rolf,
-Original Message-
From: Rolf E. Sonneveld [mailto:r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 6:27 AM
To: Barry Leiba
Cc: DKIM Mailing List; Murray S. Kucherawy
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Working group
On 09/29/2010 10:58 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I've posted a new issue of the DKIM implementation report. The most
interesting changes are the inclusion of a day of sample data from AOL and a
revision of the data summary reported by the OpenDKIM stats project using the
updated
On 09/30/2010 11:16 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
One of the things our stats project is picking up is the names of
header fields that are modified or removed in transit causing
verification failures.
The current leader is x-tm-imss-message-id. Anyone know what that is?
Maybe Doug can
On 09/14/2010 09:35 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
...but not for the reasons the anti-ADSP folks keep bringing up.
DKIM is failing because every discussion about actually /using/ DKIM
inevitably gets stuck in the same old argument about ADSP. Doesn't even
matter what the argument is about
Hi, Murray,
On 09/02/2010 07:42 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 10:35 AM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re:
On 08/30/2010 08:03 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I'd like some help tackling the next version of the MLM draft. People
seem to have varying ideas about what should be removed and perhaps
appear in other documents now. I need some consensus on a direction
in which to proceed.
So can I
On 08/30/2010 10:13 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 8/30/2010 1:10 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
I'd suggest that the second item actually be a normative
specification of
value-added features. This requires a change to the charter, and so
it would
have to wait until completing the current
Dave,
On 08/30/2010 08:40 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 8/30/2010 11:03 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I’d like some help tackling the next version of the MLM draft. People seem
to
have varying ideas about what should be removed and perhaps appear in other
documents now. I need some
Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 8/24/2010 11:59 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
Then it would appear that we are substantially in violent agreement.
in spite of our best efforts.
may I suggest we stop here for a moment and get back to the original
question, which in essence was:
MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
[...]
In any event, I perceive MLMs as the tail that appears to be wagging the dog.
In the context of email authentication, there are so many much more
interesting mail streams from my perspective.
+1
The DKIM signature
provides a simple piece of
John R. Levine wrote:
You're assuming that how end-users sort list messages is the same
as how DKIM verifiers might operate on list messages. Is that a
good assumption? Or do you mean something else when you say
sort?
I suppose I could go back and specifically ask people how their spam
John R. Levine wrote:
Why do you simplify handling of list mail to sorting and filtering,
ignoring two other important list handling activities:
1. reading mail
2. responding to mail
Well, OK. Can you offer some non-hypothetical situations where you
would read or respond to list mail
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, August 09, 2010 04:11:57 pm John R. Levine wrote:
Why do you simplify handling of list mail to sorting and filtering,
ignoring two other important list handling activities:
1. reading mail
2. responding to mail
Well, OK. Can you offer some
Hi, Murray,
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
The -01 draft was briefly presented in Maastricht. We'd like to get more
review of and feedback about it from people with an ideal in mind of starting
a WGLC toward the end of September.
Please take some time to review it and provide comments, even
Dave,
On 08/04/2010 11:10 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 8/4/2010 2:01 PM, John Levine wrote:
There's a scenario where a spammer/phisher sets up a mailing list,
...
I don't see how this poses any new problems.
More to the point is that this attack does not appear to be
On 08/03/2010 12:56 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Aug 2, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Hi, all
in the light of the discussion about draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists I'd
like to propose an alternative way to solve the MLM dilemma on how to
deal with original DKIM signature/message
On 08/03/2010 02:36 AM, John Levine wrote:
The proposal is to preserve the original message + DKIM signature and to
add the new (probably partially rewritten) output message, combined into
a multipart/alternative structure. The combined message is sent by the
MLM to the recipient.
Once
On 08/03/2010 02:02 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
Rolf,
It seems much easier for MLS (Mail List Servers) to preempt
restrictive ADSP Domains from subscribing and from submitting mail to
the list enabled with DKIM resigning.
Follow the specification and apply it accordingly using engineering
On 08/03/2010 02:13 PM, bill.ox...@cox.com wrote:
When I receive an email from DKIM mailing list, I know that it may contain
messages from Dave Hector John Doug et all but in my mind the from is DKIM
mailing list. The only dkim sig I am interested in is ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
and if I
On 08/03/2010 06:53 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 08/03/2010 09:40 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:m...@mtcc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:21 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: Rolf E. Sonneveld; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re
On 08/03/2010 06:40 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:m...@mtcc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:21 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: Rolf E. Sonneveld; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and the use of multipart
On 08/02/2010 12:43 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Black
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:15 AM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Alternative MAiling
Hi, all
in the light of the discussion about draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists I'd
like to propose an alternative way to solve the MLM dilemma on how to
deal with original DKIM signature/message versus sending out a modified
version of the message. This proposal may be impractical or hard to
On 06/11/2010 10:49 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
... So if we clarify that the recommended practice is to silently
discard (as some have described it), won't we have solved this
particularly problematic work flow?
You're right, then it just falls back to mail mysteriously
Douglas Otis wrote:
IIRC, Sendmail defined DISCARD in their Access Database Format, where to
override rejection, assert OK; to permit relaying, assert RELAY; to
always reject the message, assert REJECT; and to discard the message
completely, assert DISCARD.
And the Postfix man page for
John Levine wrote:
Unfortunately, ADSP did not define what was meant by discardable.
We said:
All mail from the domain is signed with an
Author Domain Signature. Furthermore, if a
message arrives without a valid Author Domain
Scott Kitterman wrote:
Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 6/2/2010 8:08 AM, Al Iverson wrote:
Agree. Discard and silently discard mean the same thing, in my
opinion. Though, I am guilty of using the phrase silently discard.
Maybe in an attempt to be slightly over-specific.
Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/28/2010 12:07 PM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
But I'd like to see if I understand the difference your are trying to
highlight between a manually maintained list and a self published
list.
There is a key semantic difference which, I believe, makes for a key
John R. Levine wrote:
No, all it says is we signed this mail. A signer with a good
reputation will presumably rarely sign mail where the From: address
actively misidentifies the sender, but that's a second order effect.
Right, and because the domain owner has signed the email, they
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 25/Apr/10 08:04, ned+d...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
field, DKIM is doing something wrong. In any case, it was suggested on that list that
relaxed header canonicalization be adjusted to accommodate this.
I'd rather define new canonicalization algorithms
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
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
Eliot Lear wrote:
On 11/2/09 12:20 PM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 30 October 2009 19:52:54 +0100 Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
I can't say, but I do know that many of us toss a whole lot of mail at
EHLO, some at MAIL FROM: and some at DATA. The idea I was thinking
about was
Steve Atkins wrote:
On Oct 28, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Hi,
excuse me if this has been discussed before; I was wondering whether
there has ever been discussion about the usefulness, possibilities,
caveats etc. of applying DKIM on the SMTP envelope level. I could
SM wrote:
Hi Dave,
At 06:45 29-10-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I was just at a session at an industry trade association where the
question of
doing DKIM during SMTP came up. There were operations folk who very
much liked
the idea of being able to obtain some DKIM benefit during the SMTP
Hi,
excuse me if this has been discussed before; I was wondering whether
there has ever been discussion about the usefulness, possibilities,
caveats etc. of applying DKIM on the SMTP envelope level. I could not
find an exact reference in the archives of the list; the closest I could
find is a
90 matches
Mail list logo
