Hi J.D.,
What an interesting conversation you've stoked!
On 9/14/10 9:35 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.
?
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On
Behalf Of Steve Atkins [st...@wordtothewise.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 3:01 PM
To: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault
The problem is that the two things
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:43 AM, McDowell, Brett
bmcdow...@paypal-inc.com wrote:
On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Based on that (rather precise) description, aren't ADSP's requirements a
proper subset of the DKIM requirements? If so, I'm not sure I agree with
badly
I totally agree that this pointless repetition is...pointless.
Barry and I have asked folks to stop that kind of thing a number
of times with no real success. (As demonstrated by the last
few days messages.)
Perhaps this time people will be more responsible, we'll see.
I also think that the
To: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault
The problem is that the two things have badly conflicting requirements. DKIM
is based on a domain-based identifier that's independent of the From:
domain, and that's where much of it's value comes from. ADSP is based
On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:02 AM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:43 AM, McDowell, Brett
bmcdow...@paypal-inc.com wrote:
On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Based on that (rather precise) description, aren't ADSP's requirements a
proper subset of the
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:30 AM, McDowell, Brett
bmcdow...@paypal-inc.com wrote:
I believe only the ADSP documents talk about 3rd party, and it is
defined as d= not From Domain.
These are 3rd party:
DKIM-Sig: ... d=dkim.bar.com
From: f...@bar.com
DKIM-Sig: ... d=beer.com
From:
On Sep 15, 2010, at 8:30 AM, McDowell, Brett wrote:
On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:02 AM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:43 AM, McDowell, Brett
bmcdow...@paypal-inc.com wrote:
On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Based on that (rather precise)
(sorry Stephen, but I had to reply to this one)
On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
That seems aligned with Steve's point about DKIM's value coming (only?) when
the d= value is not the same as the domain-name in the from: field. So
according to you (and Steve?) the IETF
--On 14 September 2010 15:27:34 -0600 McDowell, Brett
bmcdow...@paypal-inc.com wrote:
...and implement what you think should work before making an issue of it
in IETF.
That's been my #1 lesson this year (I'm new to IETF).
I note that you've also returned with a non-discardable paypal
McDowell, Brett bmcdow...@paypal-inc.com writes:
BTW, one thing I think we can agree on and find value from in these
pre-deployment email discussions is terminology. I ran into a problem
at the last MAAWG during a panel discussion where my understanding of
3rd-party signature is what someone
...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 anymore; it stops all forward progress every time.
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.
Should you tell you something. Ignorance doesn't work either.
Doesn't even
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
...and implement what you think should work before making an issue of it in
IETF.
That's been my #1 lesson this year (I'm new to IETF). I originally was
actually worried about blowback by the community if a large entity like
ourselves and few other household names just went off and deployed
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of McDowell, Brett
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 2:28 PM
To: J.D. Falk
Cc: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault
...and implement what
On Sep 14, 2010, at 12:35 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
But what everyone has been telling me is that it would be better in
fact to go and deploy something before drafting the I-D and debating
it here. This is the main reason why I went quiet on these lists
since the Barcelona MAAWG meeting (until this week).
Yes indeedy.
Keeping in mind that
+1.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
Steve Atkins wrote:
On Sep 14, 2010, at 12:35 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
Yes, I know it requires more effort, but what we've been doing so far
clearly isn't working.
The problem is that the two things have badly
] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault
The problem is that the two things have badly conflicting requirements. DKIM is
based on a domain-based identifier that's independent of the From: domain, and
that's where much of it's value comes from. ADSP is based on a domain-based
identifier that must
20 matches
Mail list logo
