Dave CROCKER wrote:
?> In Section 5.8:
>>
>>"DKIM-aware authoring MLMs MUST sign the mail they send according to
>> the regular signing guidelines given in [DKIM].
>>
>> One concern is that having an MLM apply its signature to unsigned
>> mail might cause some verifiers or receivers
At 11:03 23-05-2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>Then you are using criteria that go beyond the requirements of a BCP.
>
> From RFC 2026:
>
>"5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs
>
> The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
> standardize practices and the results
> > 2. Should this be Informational or BCP?
> > a: BCP, making it clear when we're insufficiently certain about
> > something.
> > Last Call will sort out any objections.
> Well, I couldn't afford to go, so I can't say you're wrong, and I don't
> know why I didn't see that on the l
> 2. Should this be Informational or BCP?
> a: BCP, making it clear when we're insufficiently certain about
> something.
> Last Call will sort out any objections.
Well, I couldn't afford to go, so I can't say you're wrong, and I don't
know why I didn't see that on the list.
I gue
>> As chair, I can say that consensus was to make this normative, not
>> experimental.
>
> With the best will in the world, I was there, and I saw no such consensus.
We discussed it live at IETF 80, and I posted the following minutes to
the mailing list on 28 March:
3. Discussion of mailinglists
> As chair, I can say that consensus was to make this normative, not
> experimental.
With the best will in the world, I was there, and I saw no such consensus.
The closest thing I can find in a quick search of the archive is this
note, which says that the group agreed on one thing (that lists s
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM, John Levine wrote:
> I'd suggest publishing it as Informational or Experimental rather than
> BCP.
As DKIM chair, I'd like to reply to this and other messages in this
thread that discuss the status of the subject document:
There was extensive discussion in the DK
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of J.D.
> Falk
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 5:35 AM
> To: IETF list; DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call:
> (DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP
>
> > I
On 16May11, J.D. Falk allegedly wrote:
> On May 15, 2011, at 9:42 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>
> >> The author can be a human using an MUA (Mail User Agent) or
> >> an automated mail robot with an MTA.
> >
> > I don't see that "automated mail robot with an MTA" is right at all.
> > But I
On May 15, 2011, at 9:42 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> The author can be a human using an MUA (Mail User Agent) or
>> an automated mail robot with an MTA.
>
> I don't see that "automated mail robot with an MTA" is right at all.
> But I see what you're getting at, and I'd support a change
On 15/May/11 21:04, Hector Santos wrote:
>The author can be a human using an MUA (Mail User Agent) or
>an automated mail robot with an MTA.
Both the human and the robot use an MTA (or an MSA.)
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according t
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -Original Message-
> "cron" sends mail, if the periodic job it executes has any output,
> to the user that requested the job. The UNIX "at" utility is the same.
>
> The job it executes might also send mail of its own accord.
>
> In both cases, there's mail
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 9:05 PM
> To: SM
> Cc: Barry Leiba; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call:
> (DK
SM wrote:
> Hi Barry,
> At 19:42 15-05-2011, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> I'd be very surprised to find that mention of "cron" in an RFC is
>> "unprecedented". Maybe I'll download the RFC set, have Google do a
>> word index on it, and see.
>
> From RFC 3834:
>
>"The auto-generated keyword:
>
>
John R. Levine wrote:
>
> There's no need to change the current language. RFCs have been
> referring to cron jobs since 1997.
But this is 2011 for G-d sake!
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
___
NOTE WE
Barry Leiba wrote:
>> It was a rhetorical question. �I don't think its necessary and IMO,
>> unprecedented.
>
> I'd be very surprised to find that mention of "cron" in an RFC is
> "unprecedented". Maybe I'll download the RFC set, have Google do a
> word index on it, and see.
What did you find?
Hi Barry,
At 19:42 15-05-2011, Barry Leiba wrote:
>I'd be very surprised to find that mention of "cron" in an RFC is
>"unprecedented". Maybe I'll download the RFC set, have Google do a
>word index on it, and see.
From RFC 3834:
"The auto-generated keyword:
- SHOULD be used on messages
I'd be very surprised to find that mention of "cron" in an RFC is
"unprecedented". Maybe I'll download the RFC set, have Google do a
word index on it, and see.
RFCs 2123, 2839, 4833, and 5427 refer to cron and cron jobs. There may be
others, but I found those with a simple grep. (If anyone w
>>> What is "cron?" and how does it interface with the originator defined as
>>> the MSA? is cron an MTA or MUA?
...
> It was a rhetorical question. I don't think its necessary and IMO,
> unprecedented.
I'd be very surprised to find that mention of "cron" in an RFC is
"unprecedented". Maybe I'l
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> What is "cron?" and how does it interface with the originator defined as
>> the MSA? is cron an MTA or MUA?
>
> It's a daemon that runs on UNIX systems which can be told to
> run specific programs at specific periodic times. It is neither an
> MTA nor an MUA; it
On May 13, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
> I'd propose to put this item ('writeup a definition of 'discardable') on
> the to-do list of a successor of RFC5617, if there ever will be one. Or
> on another future 'policy' document.
+1
--
J.D. Falk
the leading purveyor of industry cou
> I think it's best to have an example. "cron" seems to be an ideal one,
> though I'd be happy to add a second, Windows-specific, example if there is
> one. If not, changing 'such as "cron"' to 'such as the "cron" UNIX utility'
> seems a better change to me.
Anyone who's ever managed a Unix o
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 5:00 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Cc: i...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call:
> (DK
Nits and Comments:
In Section 3.1.
author: The agent that provided the content of the message being
sent through the system. The author delivers that content to the
originator in order to begin a message's journey to its intended
final recipients. The author can be a h
Hi Hector,
At 11:43 14-05-2011, Hector Santos wrote:
>See section 4.3.2
>
> DATA
> I: 354 -> data -> S: 250
> E: 552, 554, 451, 452
> E: 451, 554, 503
From http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5321.txt
DATA
I: 354 -> data -> S: 250
Hector Santos wrote:
> Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
But to be conformant, I suppose 550 5.7.0 would be appropriate.
>
>>> Alessandro Replied:
>>> Conformant to what?
>
>> RFC5321, as cited.
>
> See section 4.3.2
>
> DATA
> I: 354 -> data -> S: 250
>
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>> But to be conformant, I suppose 550 5.7.0 would be appropriate.
>> Alessandro Replied:
>> Conformant to what?
> RFC5321, as cited.
See section 4.3.2
DATA
I: 354 -> data -> S: 250
E: 552, 554, 451, 452
E: 451, 554, 5
bject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call:
> (DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP
>
> Ideally, if Murray wishes to support Jeff McDonald's Anti-Spam ID that
> is intended to update RFC3463, he might use (since this is all new
> anyway):
>
> 554 5.8.0 Undefined Policy detail
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 3:22 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call:
> (DKIM And Mailing
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> SM wrote:
>> (3) RFC5451 discussion
>>> This falls under policy decision. The usage of a 554 code is
>>> inappropriate. From Section 3.6.2 of RFC 5321:
>>>
>>>"If it [SMTP server] declines to relay mail to a particular address
>>> for policy reasons, a 550 res
On 13/May/11 20:17, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> From: On Behalf Of SM
> By my read, the bulk of your comments fall into these categories:
>
> (1) Remove the normative language, publish as Informational
My reading of SM's comments is for replacing "Best Current Practices",
not normative language
Hi Murray,
At 11:17 13-05-2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>By my read, the bulk of your comments fall into these categories:
>
>(1) Remove the normative language, publish as Informational
>
>As I said to John, I'd be fine with this. The document started out
>as Informational but there was workin
Hector Santos wrote:
> Nothing wrong with DKIM=DISCARDABLE. What is wrong is trying to
> dictate to others MLM should ignore ADSP.
>
> As a MLM vendor, I have technical and ethical engineering obligation
> not to cause problems when taking on a new inherently incompatible
> technology that do
Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
> On 5/13/11 8:12 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>>> "In such cases where the submission fails that test, the receiver or
>>> verifier SHOULD discard the message but return an SMTP success code,
>>> i.e. accept the message but drop it without de
On 5/13/11 8:12 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
[...]
>> "In such cases where the submission fails that test, the receiver or
>> verifier SHOULD discard the message but return an SMTP success code,
>> i.e. accept the message but drop it without delivery. An SMTP
>> rejection of
On 13/May/11 09:15, SM wrote:
> In Section 4.1:
>
>"In an idealized world, if an author knows that the MLM to which a
> message is being sent is a non-participating resending MLM, the
> author SHOULD be cautious when deciding whether or not to send a
> signed message to the list."
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of SM
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 12:16 AM
> To: i...@ietf.org
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (DKIM And
> Mailing Lists) to BCP
>
Hi SM,
By my read, the bulk of your com
At 08:02 12-05-2011, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the Domain Keys Identified Mail WG
>(dkim) to consider the following document:
>- 'DKIM And Mailing Lists'
>as a BCP
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action
The IESG has received a request from the Domain Keys Identified Mail WG
(dkim) to consider the following document:
- 'DKIM And Mailing Lists'
as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
i.
39 matches
Mail list logo
