John Levine wrote:
An interesting side effect is that it would also suppress bounce messages
from mailing lists, even if they resigned. I'm not sure if this is a
feature or a bug.
So, yeah, if the SSP associated with the MailFrom says
"rfc2821.MailFrom" must match a DKIM signature, or somes
>> An interesting side effect is that it would also suppress bounce messages
>> from mailing lists, even if they resigned. I'm not sure if this is a
>> feature or a bug.
>So, yeah, if the SSP associated with the MailFrom says
>"rfc2821.MailFrom" must match a DKIM signature, or somesuch, then a
>
On Jul 7, 2007, at 10:55 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
An interesting side effect is that it would also suppress bounce
messages from mailing lists, even if they resigned. I'm not sure
if this is a feature or a bug.
I think that that will depend entirely on the way the S
On Friday 06 July 2007 20:09, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'm not sure whether this fits into SSP or not, since it does not seem to
> require that a record be published. However...
>
> It seems to me that if a message has a DKIM signature and the signing
> domain matches the domain in the rfc2
Michael Thomas wrote:
An interesting side effect is that it would also suppress bounce messages
from mailing lists, even if they resigned. I'm not sure if this is a
feature or a bug.
I think that that will depend entirely on the way the SSP record is defined,
much like the constraints on rf
Dave Crocker wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
Given the DKIM sig and the "Return" SSP record, I'll generate it
since the return address domain has said it's valid.
Wouldn't you be better looking at the i= tag in the DKIM-Signature
header, anyway?
Since it's optional, I hadn't thought to rely o
Dave Crocker wrote:
Folks,
I'm not sure whether this fits into SSP or not, since it does not seem
to require that a record be published. However...
It seems to me that if a message has a DKIM signature and the signing
domain matches the domain in the rfc2821.MailFrom command, then it is
saf
Steve Atkins wrote:
Given the DKIM sig and the "Return" SSP record, I'll generate it since
the return address domain has said it's valid.
Wouldn't you be better looking at the i= tag in the DKIM-Signature
header, anyway?
Since it's optional, I hadn't thought to rely on it.
Since it's int
On Jul 6, 2007, at 6:56 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
so, perhaps, an SSP record by the signing domain that says
MailFrom is valid?
Possibly. What's the problem you're trying to solve?
I really hate it when people ask pragmatic questions like that. I
mean, really Steve,
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:59 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:31 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:19 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Folks,
I'm not sure whether this fits into SSP or not, since it does
not seem to require th
On Jul 6, 2007, at 6:56 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
so, perhaps, an SSP record by the signing domain that says
MailFrom is valid?
Possibly. What's the problem you're trying to solve?
I really hate it when people ask pragmatic questions like that. I
mean, really Steve,
Steve Atkins wrote:
so, perhaps, an SSP record by the signing domain that says MailFrom is
valid?
Possibly. What's the problem you're trying to solve?
I really hate it when people ask pragmatic questions like that. I mean,
really Steve, didn't you know that value propositions are s pa
>How can a potential bounce generator know whether this particular message has
>a validated return address? Note that the mere presence of a DKIM signature
>does not guarantee this particular validation issue.
>
>That's why the SSP-type record might be necessary.
Personally, I'd rather use BATV
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
If the mail is sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or a virus on their
machine), with an envelope from address of [EMAIL PROTECTED] out
through the DKIM stamping earthlink smarthost and you generate a
bounce, that bounce will
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:31 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:19 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Folks,
I'm not sure whether this fits into SSP or not, since it does not
seem to require that a record be published. However...
It seems to
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:47 PM, John Levine wrote:
If the mail is sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or a virus on their
machine), with an envelope from address of [EMAIL PROTECTED] out
through the DKIM stamping earthlink smarthost and you generate a
bounce, that bounce will go to Jane.
Indeed. But does
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:30 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
Am I missing something?
If the mail is sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or a virus on their
machine), with an envelope from address of [EMAIL PROTECTED] out
through the DKIM stamping earthlink smarthost and you generate a
bo
Michael Thomas wrote:
If the mail is sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or a virus on their
machine), with an envelope from address of [EMAIL PROTECTED] out
through the DKIM stamping earthlink smarthost and you generate a
bounce, that bounce will go to Jane.
Sure, but at least it's reduced to an int
>If the mail is sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or a virus on their
>machine), with an envelope from address of [EMAIL PROTECTED] out
>through the DKIM stamping earthlink smarthost and you generate a
>bounce, that bounce will go to Jane.
Indeed. But does the signature mean that's OK?
R's,
John
__
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:19 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Folks,
I'm not sure whether this fits into SSP or not, since it does not
seem to require that a record be published. However...
It seems to me that if a message has a DKIM signature and the
Steve Atkins wrote:
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Folks,
I'm not sure whether this fits into SSP or not, since it does not
seem to require that a record be published. However...
It seems to me that if a message has a DKIM signature and the signing
domain matches the doma
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Folks,
I'm not sure whether this fits into SSP or not, since it does not
seem to require that a record be published. However...
It seems to me that if a message has a DKIM signature and the
signing domain matches the domain in the rfc2821.M
Steve Atkins wrote:
Am I missing something?
If the mail is sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or a virus on their machine),
with an envelope from address of [EMAIL PROTECTED] out through the DKIM
stamping earthlink smarthost and you generate a bounce, that bounce will
go to Jane.
mumble. yeah.
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Folks,
I'm not sure whether this fits into SSP or not, since it does not
seem to require that a record be published. However...
It seems to me that if a message has a DKIM signature and the
signing domain matches the domain in the rfc2821.M
Folks,
I'm not sure whether this fits into SSP or not, since it does not seem to
require that a record be published. However...
It seems to me that if a message has a DKIM signature and the signing domain
matches the domain in the rfc2821.MailFrom command, then it is safe to
generate a bounc
25 matches
Mail list logo
