SSP is in the draft charter.
I have not noticed anyone suggesting that the charter be changed.
I'm very much in favor of keeping DKIM-SSP in the draft charter.
--
Arvel
___
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org
The problem of rfc2822.From spoofing is involves some
complex human issues and we do not have much track
record solving them.
I don't see what "complex human issues" are involved in
the simple wish as a domain owner to make known
whether use of that domain in a sender identity field
requires a s
> > The problem of rfc2822.From spoofing is involves some complex human
> > issues and we do not have much track record solving them.
>
> I don't see what "complex human issues" are involved in the simple wish
> as a domain owner to make known whether use of that domain in a sender
> identity field
The problem of rfc2822.From spoofing is involves some
complex human issues and we do not have much track
record solving them.
I don't see what "complex human issues" are involved in the simple wish as a
domain owner to make known whether use of that domain in a sender identity
field requires a
> > It's not that the tie-in does not provide incremental benefit. It is that
> > it is incremental, rather than fundamental.
>
> This is precisely the debate - whether the benefit of DKIM SSP is
> incremental or fundamental. It largely depends on what your view is of the
> problem DKIM is at
That nicely summarizes the problem I have with the fixation
of *requiring* a tie-in to the origination domain.
I've seen no evidence that such a fixation actually exists on this list so
you shouldn't have anything to worry with on this point.
It's not that the tie-in does not provide increme
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:53:37 -0500, Arvel Hathcock wrote:
> Suppose you get an unsigned message and DNS lookups fail for whatever
> transient reason.
It is probably worth our considering how well or poorly DKIM works under
different modes of connectivity.
Some models require all participants
On August 10, 2005 at 09:53, "Arvel Hathcock" wrote:
> What about DNS connectivity problems which do come up from time to time?
Then you will probably have other problems besides looking up SSP
records.
> Suppose you get an unsigned message and DNS lookups fail for whatever
> transient reason.
S was
messed up.
--
Arvel
- Original Message -
From: "Earl Hood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 7:18 PM
Subject: [ietf-dkim] DKIM SSP: Security vulnerability when SSP record
doesnot exist?
In the DKIM SSP draft, the following is stated:
