On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:18:16 +0100, Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
>> This is no more presumptuous than expecting that MUAs will adapt to
>> consume the output of DKIM as it stands now.
>
> In another message I indicated that I don't presume either, but assert
> that there's no middle ground; the
On 10/18/10 4:15 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > On Monday, October 18, 2010 3:33 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
> >
> > Should the charter of a security related protocol need to
> > anticipate minor modifications to a verification process, that
> > appears essential for ensuring a DKIM signature is
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Douglas Otis
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 3:33 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
>
> Should t
On 10/18/10 12:18 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> >> This is no more presumptuous than expecting that MUAs will adapt
> >> to consume the output of DKIM as it stands now.
>
> In another message I indicated that I don't presume either, but
> assert that there's no middle ground; they will or t
FWIW, the telnet mail interface typo fix should be:
telnet bbs.winserver.com
--
HLS
Hector Santos wrote:
> I'm a MUA author of BOTH types and people forget that there are TWO
> kinds here. We have:
>
> Console based Mail Reader/Writers Online Interface (Dialup/Telnet)
>
>
MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> This is no more presumptuous than expecting that MUAs will adapt to
> consume the output of DKIM as it stands now. The question is the value
> equation. I'm not in a position to answer that question. Perhaps we
> should try to get some of the MUA folks to join the
ssoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 3:18 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: MH Michael Hammer
> -Original Message-
> From: MH Michael Hammer (5304) [mailto:mham...@ag.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 12:11 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
>
> See above. This leads me to believe that you
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 2:51 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: MH Michael Hammer (5304) [mailto:mham...@ag.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 11:44 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
>
> > There's nothing between an MTA
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 2:26 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Mark Delany
> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 6:23 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
>
> By DKIM
> Don't think of DKIM as being inviolate offering only a disjointed
> sacrosanct identifier. DKIM process must also guard against the
> exploitation of its results
+1
By DKIM process, I would include anything cognizant of DKIM upto but
not including the MUA. Mike's secret sauce would count her
On 10/15/10 4:50 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> On Friday, October 15, 2010 2:30 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
>>
>> Citing a layer violation makes little sense. With DKIM, the message
>> body does not stand on its own. DKIM binds elements related to the
>> RFC5322 header fields with the message b
On 10/16/10 7:16 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 10/16/2010 2:39 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
> > My problem is that if some valuable domain like paypal sends me a
> > bunch of bits that I or my MUA or my MTA ties to paypal.com then
> > the end goal of DKIM is, IMO, that those bunch of bits I "see" are
>
On 10/16/2010 1:07 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> This is disingenuous on your part. It is akin to saying that although
> the common usage of hammers is to hit nails, we must accept within the
> definition of normal the usage of beating people on the head with a
> hammer simply because
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Mark Delany
> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 2:39 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
>
> On Sat, Oc
On 10/16/2010 2:39 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
> My problem is that if some valuable domain like paypal sends me a
> bunch of bits that I or my MUA or my MTA ties to paypal.com then the
> end goal of DKIM is, IMO, that those bunch of bits I "see" are the
> ones that paypal sent. No more, no less.
>
>
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:10:48AM -0400, Dave CROCKER allegedly wrote:
>
>
> On 10/15/2010 8:32 PM, Mark Delany wrote:
> > Therefore one could
> > argue that DKIM is "protecting" that relationship between the message
> > and identifier.
>
> Clever phrasing. Might be too subtle for general use,
On 10/15/2010 8:32 PM, Mark Delany wrote:
> Therefore one could
> argue that DKIM is "protecting" that relationship between the message
> and identifier.
Clever phrasing. Might be too subtle for general use, but I think it offers a
perspective that could be useful.
I think the issue here is t
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> There might be a better way to characterize it, but I think the answer comes
> from the errata RFC upon which we reached consensus a while back: The primary
> payload delivered by a DKIM validation is the validated domain name.
> Reputation, for example, would be c
> I thought the "What DKIM does" thing was a long-dead horse, as we'd
> long ago reached consensus that what DKIM does is provide a stable
> identifier on the message, and nothing more. That makes this
> assertion inapposite.
> I think perhaps now would be a good time to make that explicit,
> sin
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 5:09 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
>
> > I
On Friday, October 15, 2010 07:50:36 pm Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org
> > [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Otis Sent:
> > Friday, October 15, 2010 2:30 PM
> > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> > Subject: Re:
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Douglas Otis
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 2:30 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] detecting header mutations after signing
>
> Citing a layer viol
25 matches
Mail list logo
