On 8/2/2010 11:34 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
A -1 on ever altering the From: field for any reason other than special
requirements of the people running a specific mailing list.
A +1 in support of that -1.
The view that modifying the From: is helpful has no empirical basis. I'll
claim
that
Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 8/2/2010 11:34 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
A -1 on ever altering the From: field for any reason other than special
requirements of the people running a specific mailing list.
A +1 in support of that -1.
The view that modifying the From: is helpful has
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy m...@cloudmark.com wrote:
Some offlist feedback I wanted to bounce to the list to gauge consensus:
a) Section 5.1 currently advocates a warning to new subscribers to an MLM
with a highly restrictive ADSP policy. Should this be stronger,
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Macdonald
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 10:53 AM
To: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Feedback on draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists for
discussion
c) A -1 to the idea
on draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists for
discussion
c) A -1 to the idea of altering From: to cope with ADSP; the reason
given:
This presumes endpoints will understand a DKIM-related From:-altered
message.
I must of missed that point in Daniel's thread. I hadn't realized
On Aug 2, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Macdonald
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 10:53 AM
To: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Feedback on draft-ietf
On 8/1/10 3:22 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Some offlist feedback I wanted to bounce to the list to gauge consensus:
a) Section 5.1 currently advocates a warning to new subscribers to an
MLM with a highly restrictive ADSP policy. Should this be stronger,
such as “a warning is advised,
Some offlist feedback I wanted to bounce to the list to gauge consensus:
a) Section 5.1 currently advocates a warning to new subscribers to an MLM with
a highly restrictive ADSP policy. Should this be stronger, such as a warning
is advised, and full denial should be considered?
b) Would it be
a) Section 5.1 currently advocates a warning to new subscribers to an
MLM with a highly restrictive ADSP policy. Should this be stronger,
such as a warning is advised, and full denial should be considered?
Yes, since the damage from ADSP can affect other subscribers.
b) Would it be a good idea
On Monday 02 August 2010 08:22:15 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Some offlist feedback I wanted to bounce to the list to gauge consensus:
a) Section 5.1 currently advocates a warning to new subscribers to an MLM
with a highly restrictive ADSP policy. Should this be stronger, such as
a warning
On 08/01/2010 03:22 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Some offlist feedback I wanted to bounce to the list to gauge consensus:
a) Section 5.1 currently advocates a warning to new subscribers to an
MLM with a highly restrictive ADSP policy. Should this be stronger, such
as “a warning is advised,
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Black
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 4:48 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Feedback on draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists for
discussion
b) Would
12 matches
Mail list logo
