On 23 Jun 2011, at 20:00, Douglas Otis wrote:
This seems like a completely bogus argument to me. You're saying that
some domains can't be trusted, therefore none can be trusted. That's
a logical fallacy.
Not at all. Acceptance policies and results for DKIM MUST align with
what is being
On 24 Jun 2011, at 05:55, John R. Levine wrote:
Assuming this is some other protocol layers problem; to ensure consistency
between any possible display and DKIM validation, ...
... is, for about the hundredth time, not DKIM's job.
Please chant we have no idea how MUAs will display mail
On 24 Jun 2011, at 03:46, Douglas Otis wrote:
On 6/23/11 2:52 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Acceptance policies and results for DKIM MUST align with
what is being displayed in the message.
I'm pretty sure that we have uniformly agreed not to attempt to do MUA
design, so, no, it doesn't. We
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 05:55:38 +0100, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Assuming this is some other protocol layers problem; to ensure
consistency
between any possible display and DKIM validation, ...
... is, for about the hundredth time, not DKIM's job.
Please chant we have no idea
On 21 Jun 2011, at 19:47, Douglas Otis wrote:
On 6/17/11 1:05 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
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
On 6/23/11 5:16 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
On 21 Jun 2011, at 19:47, Douglas Otis wrote:
Hi Rolf,
The general goal of DKIM was to establish a domain relationship as
a trust basis for acceptance. DKIM was also to allow incremental
deployment without requiring undefined additional filtering
Acceptance policies and results for DKIM MUST align with
what is being displayed in the message.
I'm pretty sure that we have uniformly agreed not to attempt to do MUA
design, so, no, it doesn't. We have no idea what is displayed in the
message. We have no idea if the message will ever be
On 6/23/11 2:52 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Acceptance policies and results for DKIM MUST align with
what is being displayed in the message.
I'm pretty sure that we have uniformly agreed not to attempt to do MUA
design, so, no, it doesn't. We have no idea what is displayed in the
message.
I'm pretty sure that we have uniformly agreed not to attempt to do MUA
design, so, no, it doesn't. We have no idea what is displayed in the
message. We have no idea if the message will ever be displayed at all.
Ian,
John is right. Most headers are displayed selecting top-down
If you'll
On 6/23/11 8:34 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
I'm pretty sure that we have uniformly agreed not to attempt to do
MUA design, so, no, it doesn't. We have no idea what is displayed
in the message. We have no idea if the message will ever be
displayed at all.
Ian,
John is right. Most headers
Assuming this is some other protocol layers problem; to ensure consistency
between any possible display and DKIM validation, ...
... is, for about the hundredth time, not DKIM's job.
Please chant we have no idea how MUAs will display mail over and over
until you believe it. This includes
On 6/17/11 1:05 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
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
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
-dkim@mipassoc.orgmailto:ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org,
opendkim-us...@lists.opendkim.orgmailto:opendkim-us...@lists.opendkim.org
opendkim-us...@lists.opendkim.orgmailto:opendkim-us...@lists.opendkim.org
Subject: [ietf-dkim] DKIM expert group meeting for Dutch 'comply or explain'
list
Dear all,
after
14 matches
Mail list logo
