It seems to me that the domains likely to benefit from the ability to
state "All email we send is DKIM signed" share a few things in common.
1. They're concerned about other people sending email claiming to
be "from" the domain.
2. They send email using the domain to, typically, a large
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> Did we already look at this idea and discard it before we settled on
> using a DNS query for every email received?
Discussed, not discarded. AFAIR, the general feeling is that Lookups are
cheap today.
As defined by the SSP design requir
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:34 PM
> To: ietf-dkim WG
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Another take on "all email from us is dkim
signed&qu
Steve Atkins wrote:
> If there were another field in the DKIM-Signature header, or an
> entirely separate email header covered by the DKIM signature, that
> stated "all email sent using this domain in the From field will be
> DKIM signed" then any receiving MTA or MTA cluster could keep track
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 4:26 PM
> To: Steve Atkins
> Cc: ietf-dkim WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Another take on "
On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> Steve Atkins wrote:
>> If there were another field in the DKIM-Signature header, or an
>> entirely separate email header covered by the DKIM signature, that
>> stated "all email sent using this domain in the From field will be
>> DKIM
On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:20 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that the domains likely to benefit from the ability to
>> state "All email we send is DKIM signed" share a few things in
>> common.
>>
>> 1. They're concerned about other people sending email claiming to
>> be "
MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>>If nothing else, this would make revocation sort of... bizarre
>>and unpredictable. The implication is that I'd have to send $you
>>mail (for $you == 'universe') to get you to nuke my record in your
>>database. Of course every good protocol becomes
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
If there were another field in the DKIM-Signature header, or an
> entirely separate email header covered by the DKIM signature, that
> stated "all email sent using this domain in the From field will be
> DKIM signed" then any receiving MTA or MT
On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:38 PM, HLS wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Steve Atkins
> wrote:
>
> If there were another field in the DKIM-Signature header, or an
> entirely separate email header covered by the DKIM signature, that
> stated "all email sent using this domain in the From f
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Mark Delany
> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
>>
>> Did we already look at this idea and discard it before we settled on
>> using a DNS query for every email received?
>
>
> Discussed, not discarded. AFAIR, the general feeling is
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Steve Atkins
wrote:
Did we already look at this idea and discard it before we settled on
using a DNS query for every email received?
Discussed, not discarded. AFAIR, the general feeling is that
Lookups are cheap today.
Essentially such an approach is a
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Mark Delany
> wrote:
> Outside of DNS query related technical issues, the first operational
>> repercussion is the lost of handling legacy mail. We need to use an
>> "standard anchor" something we know will always be there, which as it is
>> now, is the From:
> Outside of DNS query related technical issues, the first
> operational repercussion is the lost of handling legacy mail. We
> need to use an "standard anchor" something we know will always be
> there, which as it is now, is the From: domain lookup.
>
For those subset of folk who want t
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:38 PM, HLS wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Steve Atkins
> > wrote:
> >
> > This was touched upon back in 2007/2008 holidays with a WG
> > suggestion to add a DKIM-Signature tag thats says *first p
MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>>
>> It also seems that the number of domains who want this will likely be
>> a small fraction of the total number of domains, and likely a small
>> fraction of the number of emails sent.
>>
>
> That may be true today but may not be true tomorrow.
Besides the fa
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 4:36 PM
> To: ietf-dkim WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Another take on "all email from us is dkim
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
