[ietf-dkim] FW: An issue with DKIM reporting extensions

2010-10-12 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
I don't think this is really something this WG needs to deal with, though I could be wrong. It's forwarded here just for informational purposes. From: marf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:marf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 12:11 PM To: m...@ietf.org

Re: [ietf-dkim] FW: An issue with DKIM reporting extensions

2010-10-13 Thread John Levine
>- In order to make use of ADSP, Y needs to change which MTA it's >using. This is almost certainly an expensive effort. > >- Y simply can't use ADSP. > >- The DKIM reporting extensions should have a flag that says DSNs >should not cause generation of fraud reports. I'll

Re: [ietf-dkim] FW: An issue with DKIM reporting extensions

2010-10-13 Thread MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> -Original Message- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim- > boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of John Levine > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 9:29 AM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] FW: An issue with DKIM re

Re: [ietf-dkim] FW: An issue with DKIM reporting extensions

2010-10-13 Thread Rolf E. Sonneveld
On 10/13/10 3:29 PM, John Levine wrote: >> - In order to make use of ADSP, Y needs to change which MTA it's >> using. This is almost certainly an expensive effort. >> >> - Y simply can't use ADSP. >> >> - The DKIM reporting extensions should have a flag that says DSNs

Re: [ietf-dkim] FW: An issue with DKIM reporting extensions

2010-10-13 Thread Steve Atkins
On Oct 13, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: > or > a special selector (e.g. s=notifications), to identify the different > nature of this mail stream? No. Never do this. Selectors are an operational convenience for key rotation and ease of domain delegation. They have no semantics b

Re: [ietf-dkim] FW: An issue with DKIM reporting extensions

2010-10-13 Thread Jeff Macdonald
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Steve Atkins wrote: > > On Oct 13, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: > > >> or >> a special selector (e.g. s=notifications), to identify the different >> nature of this mail stream? > > No. Never do this. > > Selectors are an operational convenience for k

Re: [ietf-dkim] FW: An issue with DKIM reporting extensions

2010-10-13 Thread Dave CROCKER
On 10/13/2010 2:03 PM, Jeff Macdonald wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Steve Atkins > wrote: >>> or >>> a special selector (e.g. s=notifications), to identify the different >>> nature of this mail stream? >> >> No. Never do this. >> >> Selectors are an operational convenience for key

Re: [ietf-dkim] FW: An issue with DKIM reporting extensions

2010-10-13 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:55:25 am Steve Atkins wrote: > On Oct 13, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: > > or > > a special selector (e.g. s=notifications), to identify the different > > nature of this mail stream? > > No. Never do this. > > Selectors are an operational convenienc

Re: [ietf-dkim] FW: An issue with DKIM reporting extensions

2010-10-13 Thread Steve Atkins
On Oct 13, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:55:25 am Steve Atkins wrote: >> On Oct 13, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: >>> or >>> a special selector (e.g. s=notifications), to identify the different >>> nature of this mail stream? >> >> No.

Re: [ietf-dkim] FW: An issue with DKIM reporting extensions

2010-10-13 Thread Michael Thomas
On 10/13/2010 11:25 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:55:25 am Steve Atkins wrote: >> On Oct 13, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: >>> or >>> a special selector (e.g. s=notifications), to identify the different >>> nature of this mail stream? >> >> No. Never do