I've posted an individual submission draft that attempts to capture some of the
consensus and some appropriate guidance around the use of DKIM in the context
of mailing lists. I don't propose that it's final at all, but merely an anchor
point for further discussion.
http://datatracker.ietf.org
ave a chance to review
it more closely.
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:02 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP"
awy"
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Sent: Monday, 10 May, 2010 11:01:54 AM
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
I’ve posted an individual submission draft that attempts to capture some of the
consensus and some appropriate guidance around the use of DKIM in the cont
forwarding fall under the aliasing-style MLMs
as the mechanism is identical. Perhaps we could say so here.
From: Franck Martin [mailto:fra...@genius.com]
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 1:43 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dkim-lists/
>
>Would the WG like to bring it in and make it a WG document? If so, I
>volunteer to act as editor.
Yes, please. I'll be happy to help.
R's,
John
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according
On May 10, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> This looks good. Ok to become a WG document
+1
> Pity we may need a separate document for "forwarding" or can this notion be
> included in the current document?
It's complex enough with all the different ways that MLM-style remailing can be
On May 10, 2010, at 11:01 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> I’ve posted an individual submission draft that attempts to capture some of
> the consensus and some appropriate guidance around the use of DKIM in the
> context of mailing lists. I don’t propose that it’s final at all, but merely
> a
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of J.D. Falk
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:28 PM
> To: IETF-DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
>
> That brin
On 5/10/2010 3:24 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
> What's described there as an "authoring" mailing list manager isn't really
> what I think of as a mailing list, and there's not that much to say about it
> compared with the other sorts discussed. If it simplified things it could be
> dropped without af
On 5/10/2010 2:28 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
> I think we could write normative language for what MLM software MUST NOT do
> if it wants to pass DKIM-signed messages through unscathed.
Seems an odd thing to make normative, since all that is entailed is not
breaking
the signature, and the details of
On 5/10/10 4:55 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> An MLM "supports DKIM" (or "is DKIM-friendly", to use some earlier language)
> if it either (a) doesn't do any message modification that would generally
> invalidate an author signature, or (b) re-signs mail upon re-posting it, or
> (c) both (a) a
> Iâd argue that the practices for forwarding fall under the
> aliasing-style MLMs as the mechanism is identical. Perhaps we could
> say so here.
I'll bet I can get a 50 message thread going arguing about whether and
how the bounce address should change, with at least 10 of the messages
pointin
--On 10 May 2010 15:24:05 -0700 Steve Atkins
wrote:
>
> On May 10, 2010, at 11:01 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
>> I’ve posted an individual submission draft that attempts to capture
>> some of the consensus and some appropriate guidance around the use of
>> DKIM in the context of mailing l
On 05/10/2010 08:01 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I’ve posted an individual submission draft that
attempts to capture some of the consensus and some appropriate guidance
around
the use of DKIM in the context of mailing lists. I don’t propose that
it’s
final at all, but merely
> -Original Message-
> From: McDowell, Brett [mailto:bmcdow...@paypal.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 9:51 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
>
> I'm an IETF newbie, so
On May 10, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dkim-lists/
>
> Would the WG like to bring it in and make it a WG document? If so, I
> volunteer to act as editor.
>
I'm an IETF newbie, so correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems you ar
On 5/11/10 7:37 AM, Serge Aumont wrote:
Serge,
> -Sympa include DKIM signature verification and use DKIM signature
> status in the process of message submission and email commands
> -it remove broken pre-existing DKIM signature and keep others as is
> (not all messages are processed in way th
On May 10, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
> What's described there as an "authoring" mailing list manager isn't really
> what I think of as a mailing list, and there's not that much to say about it
> compared with the other sorts discussed. If it simplified things it could be
> dropped w
On 05/11/2010 06:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> From what I see on the list, there is clear consensus that this
>> document should be produced as a WG document (which I support as well).
>> So can we consider that question closed?
>
> That's up to the chairs, but I suspect we have enough
On 05/11/2010 07:48 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
> On 5/11/10 7:37 AM, Serge Aumont wrote:
> Serge,
>
>> -Sympa include DKIM signature verification and use DKIM signature
>> status in the process of message submission and email commands
>> -it remove broken pre-existing DKIM signature and keep o
Hi Murray,
Thanks for taking a shot at this. Here are some comments on the Lists
draft.
First, I support the draft becoming a working group document.
However, I wonder if it requires simplification with a bit more
discussion as to motivation. I'll get into some of that below.
Introducti
On 17/May/10 11:47, Serge Aumont wrote:
> "ADSP = discardable" means : "the domain encourages the recipient(s) to
> discard it.". So a pretty MLM should discard thoses messages unless it
> is able to brodcast it to subscribers without DKIM signature alteration.
> "ADSP = all" does not recommend to
On 5/17/10 2:47 AM, Serge Aumont wrote:
> On 05/11/2010 07:48 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
>
>> On 5/11/10 7:37 AM, Serge Aumont wrote:
>> Serge,
>>
>>
>>>-Sympa include DKIM signature verification and use DKIM signature
>>> status in the process of message submission and email commands
>>
>If think it would be an error to recommend that MLM handles "ADSP =
>all" in the same way as they handle email with "discardable" domain. If
>so "ADSP = all" will have a very poor difference with "ADSP =
>discardable" a very very low number of domaines will use such ADSP policy.
Agreed. We hav
>> A DKIM-aware resending MLM is encouraged to sign the entire message
>> as it arrived, especially including the original signatures.
>
>Would I as an MLM want to resign a message that I received that itself
>was not signed? Do I want to confer more authority to that message than
>is wa
> Lists never have had DKIM to deal with, so they've never had the option to
> make any such promise. The signature lends the MLM's credibility to the
> message, which in turn could hurt the MLM's credibility if it turns out to be
> signing garbage. How else would a reputation for signers work
John,
> Yes, of course. The signature means that this message really truly
> came from the mailing list, as opposed to being a random piece of spam
> that happened to resemble list mail. What else would it mean? Lists
> have never promised that the original sender was "real" nor that
> messag
--On 17 May 2010 11:47:11 +0200 Serge Aumont wrote:
>
> "ADSP = discardable" means : "the domain encourages the recipient(s) to
> discard it.". So a pretty MLM should discard thoses messages unless it
> is able to brodcast it to subscribers without DKIM signature alteration.
No, it (or it's
--On 18 May 2010 10:40:05 +0100 Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
>
> --On 17 May 2010 11:47:11 +0200 Serge Aumont wrote:
>
>>
>> "ADSP = discardable" means : "the domain encourages the recipient(s) to
>> discard it.". So a pretty MLM should discard thoses messages unless it
>> is able to brodcast it to s
On 18/May/10 07:08, John Levine wrote:
>>> A DKIM-aware resending MLM is encouraged to sign the entire message
>>> as it arrived, especially including the original signatures.
>>
>>Would I as an MLM want to resign a message that I received that itself
>>was not signed? Do I want to confe
On 18 May 2010, John Levine wrote:
> Agreed. We have no idea what "all" means in practice, other than perhaps
> an ill-defined small decrement to some sort of reputation if the signature
> isn't present.
If I were in charge, I'd retire "all", to be replaced with two new
options with clearer seman
>If I were in charge, I'd retire "all", to be replaced with two new
>options with clearer semantics. One would be the "except-mlist" I
>proposed a few months back.
I don't understand what verifiers are supposed to do with that. How
is an MTA doing the DKIM verification and filtering supposed kno
> It'll be the one that's not broken, I presume. If there's more than one
> unbroken signature, I guess the signing domain might want to match the
> list-id header.
Why is it important to match signatures? If there's a valid signature
with a good rep, deliver the mail. If the mail turns out t
--On 18 May 2010 14:55:14 +0200 Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On 18/May/10 07:08, John Levine wrote:
A DKIM-aware resending MLM is encouraged to sign the entire
message as it arrived, especially including the original
signatures.
>>>
>>> Would I as an MLM want to resi
On 5/18/10 10:16 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> It'll be the one that's not broken, I presume. If there's more than one
>> unbroken signature, I guess the signing domain might want to match the
>> list-id header.
>>
> Why is it important to match signatures? If there's a valid signature
> with
On May 17, 2010, at 11:08 PM, John Levine wrote:
> I like Murray's draft, and I hope that we can resist the urge to add
> vast amounts of non-productive complication to it.
+1
Likewise, I hope that we can resist the urge to re-argue all the old arguments
about ADSP. This BCP won't fix those is
On 18 May 2010, John Levine wrote:
> >If I were in charge, I'd retire "all", to be replaced with two new
> >options with clearer semantics. One would be the "except-mlist" I
> >proposed a few months back.
>
> I don't understand what verifiers are supposed to do with that. How
> is an MTA doing th
On 5/18/10 1:46 PM, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
> On 18 May 2010, John Levine wrote:
>
>>> If I were in charge, I'd retire "all", to be replaced with two new
>>> options with clearer semantics. One would be the "except-mlist" I
>>> proposed a few months back.
>>>
>> I don't understand w
On Tue, 18 May 2010, Douglas Otis wrote:
> Why would you see "rejectable" as being different from "all" assertions?
Just about everyone thinks EITHER that "rejectable" would be redundant
with "all", OR that "except-mlist" would be redundant with "all". But
narrowing "all"'s meaning down to two ch
On 5/18/10 5:28 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> That doesn't seem to be about mailing lists.
>
> I don't see that we're re-opening ADSP now and we're not
> chartered for that, so I don't really see much point in
> this discussion.
>
> So perhaps take that discussion offlist?
>
Stephen,
Deprecatin
That doesn't seem to be about mailing lists.
I don't see that we're re-opening ADSP now and we're not
chartered for that, so I don't really see much point in
this discussion.
So perhaps take that discussion offlist?
Stephen.
On 05/19/2010 01:18 AM, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2
>1. "except-mlist" is primarily for the benefit of vanity domain
>recipients who have programmed their MTA with knowledge of exactly which
>lists they are subscribed to.
If you already know what lists you're subscribed to, why would you do
anything other than accept all the mail from the lists?
R
On 18/May/10 19:16, John R. Levine wrote:
>> It'll be the one that's not broken, I presume. If there's more than one
>> unbroken signature, I guess the signing domain might want to match the
>> list-id header.
Unfortunately, that header does not make a net distinction between the
list-label an
On Wed, 19 May 2010 03:52:01 +0100, John Levine wrote:
>> 1. "except-mlist" is primarily for the benefit of vanity domain
>> recipients who have programmed their MTA with knowledge of exactly which
>> lists they are subscribed to.
>
> If you already know what lists you're subscribed to, why would
On 19 May 2010, John Levine wrote:
> If you already know what lists you're subscribed to, why would you do
> anything other than accept all the mail from the lists?
True, vanity domains likely won't bother to treat "rejectable"
differently than "except-mlist". The only difference is in a case tha
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 8:28 PM
> To: Michael Deutschmann; Douglas Otis
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dk
On May 19, 2010, at 7:53 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> +1. The current discussion was supposed to be about BCP. I agree with
> Stephen with the caveat that if the group thinks re-opening ADSP
> discussion is important then include it in the re-charter. Personally
> I'd like to wait until w
On May 19, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 05/19/2010 02:21 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
>> On May 19, 2010, at 7:53 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>>
>>> +1. The current discussion was supposed to be about BCP. I agree with
>>> Stephen with the caveat that if the group thinks re-openin
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of J.D. Falk
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:22 PM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
>
> On May 19, 2
On 05/19/2010 02:21 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
> On May 19, 2010, at 7:53 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>
>> +1. The current discussion was supposed to be about BCP. I agree with
>> Stephen with the caveat that if the group thinks re-opening ADSP
>> discussion is important then include it in the re
On 05/19/2010 02:35 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
> On May 19, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>> On 05/19/2010 02:21 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
>>> On May 19, 2010, at 7:53 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>>>
+1. The current discussion was supposed to be about BCP. I agree with
Stephen wi
On Wed, 19 May 2010, MH Michael Hammer wrote:
> +1. The current discussion was supposed to be about BCP. I agree with
> Stephen with the caveat that if the group thinks re-opening ADSP
> discussion is important then include it in the re-charter. Personally
> I'd like to wait until we hear some numb
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 5:29 PM
> To: J.D. Falk
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft availa
>From my perspective, it would have to be very compelling for me to
>support modifying ADSP at this point. ADSP is the DKIM tail and not
>vice a versa.
Entirely agreed. As this point the only concrete datum I'm aware of
is that ADSP has been observed to break IETF mailing lists. I would
want to
> -Original Message-
> From: John Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 2:23 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Cc: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
>
> >From my perspective, it wo
On 5/20/10 11:22 AM, John Levine wrote:
> > From my perspective, it would have to be very compelling for me to
>
>> support modifying ADSP at this point. ADSP is the DKIM tail and not
>> vice a versa.
>>
> Entirely agreed. As this point the only concrete datum I'm aware of
> is that ADSP
On May 20, 2010, at 10:09 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> If Brett or anyone else has data points that would impact the decision
> as to whether the group sticks to a Lists BCP discussion based on
> current practice/implementations or sets that aside to modify ADSP, now
> is the time to pres
On 20/May/10 13:25, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
> 1. Must relay message verbatim. No subject tags, disclaimers, or "how
> to unsubscribe" footers. But new headers above the DKIM signature can
> be ok.
If MLM software were smart enough to avoid adding subject tags and
footers in case they are alr
On 5/20/2010 11:42 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>> From: John Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
>> Entirely agreed. As this point the only concrete datum I'm aware of
>> is that ADSP has been observed to break IETF mailing lists. I would
>> want to see a lot more practical as opposed to hy
On 5/17/2010 10:08 PM, John Levine wrote:
>The signature means that this message really truly
> came from the mailing list
Actually, DKIM makes no statement about authorship or even actors in the
handling sequence. It merely says that that verified domain is willing to take
"some" respon
Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> If there is a desire and need to have the semantic be "came from the mailing
> list" then there needs to be a mailing list equivalent to ADSP, which
> correlates
> a DKIM signature with the domain in a List-ID header field.
+1
__
Hi Dave & John,
I read both of you as actually agreeing in principle. My issue was
whether a signature would confer more authority upon a message than
perhaps it deserved, and how would an MLM behave in terms of its
incentives. In thinking about this, I'd have to say that you're both
right
> There may yet be a grey area for very sophisticated or experimental MLMs
> (like "Hmm... SpamAssassin medium score; maybe let it through but don't
> sign"), but then they don't need a BCP; we need them to publish the
> results of the experiment ;-)
Quite right, and as always, the ASRG stands
On 24/05/2010 00:35, John R. Levine wrote:
>
>> The only thing that leaves are non-participant MLMs and there really isn't
>> much to be done with them.
>>
> We have one concrete failure scenario, in which someone who publishes
> dkim=discardable sends mail to a MLM that as usual breaks the
On Sat, 22 May 2010, Dave Crocker wrote:
> If there is a desire and need to have the semantic be "came from the
> mailing list" then there needs to be a mailing list equivalent to ADSP,
> which correlates a DKIM signature with the domain in a List-ID header
> field.
That's not necessary.
The weak
--On 23 May 2010 15:24:51 +0200 Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Dave & John,
>
> I read both of you as actually agreeing in principle. My issue was
> whether a signature would confer more authority upon a message than
> perhaps it deserved, and how would an MLM behave in terms of its
> incentives. I
--On 23 May 2010 12:35:48 -0400 "John R. Levine" wrote:
>> There may yet be a grey area for very sophisticated or experimental MLMs
>> (like "Hmm... SpamAssassin medium score; maybe let it through but don't
>> sign"), but then they don't need a BCP; we need them to publish the
>> results of the
> I guess the list should be rejecting his email! Then, perhaps, his
> organisation would get around to deploying a non-discardable domain.
I've suggested it. They know they have a problem, but they won't yet say
what they're going to do about it.
As you may recall, they suggested that lists s
--On 24 May 2010 09:08:42 -0400 "John R. Levine" wrote:
>> I guess the list should be rejecting his email! Then, perhaps, his
>> organisation would get around to deploying a non-discardable domain.
>
> I've suggested it. They know they have a problem, but they won't yet say
> what they're goin
> I do recall. Perhaps if the list (and other lists) were rejecting the mail,
> they'd be more likely to act. We don't have to wait for them, do we?
Not at all. If we can agree that lists should reject discardable mail out
of self defense, that's a good point to add to the BCP.
Regards,
John L
On 5/24/10 1:23 AM, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
> On Sat, 22 May 2010, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>> If there is a desire and need to have the semantic be "came from the
>> mailing list" then there needs to be a mailing list equivalent to ADSP,
>> which correlates a DKIM signature with the domain in
--On 24 May 2010 10:36:46 -0400 "John R. Levine" wrote:
>> I do recall. Perhaps if the list (and other lists) were rejecting the
>> mail, they'd be more likely to act. We don't have to wait for them, do
>> we?
>
> Not at all. If we can agree that lists should reject discardable mail
> out of
Roland Turner wrote:
>>
> Surely the stance of a dkim=discardable sender is that it is absolutely
> OK to discard affected messages if there is any reason at all for doubt
> and that, therefore, "non-participant" MLMs aren't, actually, breaking
> anything.
There's some risk that what a list
On May 24, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
>
> --On 24 May 2010 10:36:46 -0400 "John R. Levine" wrote:
>
>>> I do recall. Perhaps if the list (and other lists) were rejecting the
>>> mail, they'd be more likely to act. We don't have to wait for them, do
>>> we?
>>
>> Not at all. If
On May 24, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
>> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
>> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:42 PM
>> To: DKIM List
>> Subjec
On 5/24/10 1:41 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> On May 24, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
> > Not at all. If we can agree that lists should reject discardable
> > mail out of self defense, that's a good point to add to the BCP.
>
> Refusing signups from those domains is probably a bit extrem
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:42 PM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
>
> >>
On May 20, 2010, at 6:01 PM, McDowell, Brett wrote:
> B) I'm going to re-subscribe to this (and all outside-the-firewall mailing
> lists) with a personal email address to avoid the current situation (of my
> messages going to SPAM or the bit bucket due to the firm ADSP=discardable
> policy on p
On May 24, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>> We have one concrete failure scenario, in which someone who publishes
>> dkim=discardable sends mail to a MLM that as usual breaks the signature,
>> a subscriber's mail system carefully follows the ADSP and rejects that
>> mail, causing the subs
>>> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:42 PM
>>> To: DKIM List
>>> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
>>>
>>>>> Not at all. If we can agree that lists should reject discardable
>>> mail
>>>>> out of
--On 24 May 2010 13:41:37 -0700 Steve Atkins
wrote:
>
>>
>> I think that's probably the most principled thing to do.
>>
>> For self-protection, there's also the option of NOT sending the message
>> with a VERPed sender address. That would mean that a subsequent
>> rejection should not count a
On May 24, 2010, at 9:08 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> I guess the list should be rejecting his email! Then, perhaps, his
>> organisation would get around to deploying a non-discardable domain.
>
> I've suggested it. They know they have a problem, but they won't yet say
> what they're going to
On 25/05/2010 18:37, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> No, and of course a site needn't reject ADSP mail with broken signatures.
> Indeed, to protect it's members from unwanted unsubscriptions, it might be
> better to drop the email than reject it. But, then the sender might never
> discover what they're doing
”, which is defined earlier in the
document.
For 5.2 and 5.4, I’ve added some clarifying text.
Thanks for the thorough review!
-MSK
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:l...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 4:36 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists &quo
> If I understand correctly, the only receivers that would reject/discard such
> messages are "participating" receivers. Therefore I think it's reasonable
> for us to expect participating receivers to follow our guidance in the
> DKIM-LISTS BCP. So if we clarify that the recommended practice i
>>> ... So if we clarify that the recommended practice is to "silently
>> discard" (as some have described it), won't we have solved this
>> particularly problematic work flow?
>>
>> You're right, then it just falls back to mail mysteriously disappearing.
>>
> why can't the MLM send bounce back to
> That's an example of the reason that I don't find ADSP
> useful (as opposed to manually vetted discard lists.) There's no way to
> tell whether the party publishing discardable understands what they're
> saying.
I'm sure that some people would like to put:
theirdomain.com.3600
On 06/11/2010 10:49 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
... So if we clarify that the recommended practice is to "silently
>>> discard" (as some have described it), won't we have solved this
>>> particularly problematic work flow?
>>>
>>> You're right, then it just falls back to mail mys
>> Of course not. That's an example of the reason that I don't find ADSP
>> useful (as opposed to manually vetted discard lists.) There's no way to
>> tell whether the party publishing discardable understands what they're
>> saying.
>>
>
> And likewise there is no way to tell whether the party i
>> There's a fairly key difference you're missing here. For ADSP, each
>> domain publishes what it thinks is its own policy, so if you look at a
>> million domains, you have to guess about the competence of a million mail
>> system managers.
>>
>> On the other hand, if you use one or two publishe
--On 12 June 2010 17:22:34 +0200 "John R. Levine" wrote:
>>> Of course not. That's an example of the reason that I don't find ADSP
>>> useful (as opposed to manually vetted discard lists.) There's no way to
>>> tell whether the party publishing discardable understands what they're
>>> saying.
--On 11 June 2010 22:49:05 +0200 "John R. Levine" wrote:
>
> Of course not. That's an example of the reason that I don't find ADSP
> useful (as opposed to manually vetted discard lists.) There's no way to
> tell whether the party publishing discardable understands what they're
> saying.
>
Ri
> I would appreciate you describing in detail this "collateral damage". If
> it involves discarding of mail from the domain in question then it is
> not collateral. What else do you have for us?
It's collateral to the extent that one's users complain about not getting
perfectly good mail. "Your
> What you describe is NOT "collateral damage". The effect you describe is
> not unintended or accidental.
Aw, come on. When the person publishing ADSP doesn't understand what he's
saying, the damage he causes is entirely unintended and accidental.
If you're saying that ADSP was designed as a g
> -Original Message-
> From: John R. Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 10:07 AM
> To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
>
> > I would appreciate you describing i
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 6:23 AM
> To: Ian Eiloart
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft availab
On 6/14/10 7:07 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> I would appreciate you describing in detail this "collateral damage". If
>> it involves discarding of mail from the domain in question then it is
>> not collateral. What else do you have for us?
>>
> It's collateral to the extent that one's users c
--On 14 June 2010 16:07:03 +0200 "John R. Levine" wrote:
> It's collateral to the extent that one's users complain about not getting
> perfectly good mail.
My understanding of "collateral damage" is that third parties are damaged.
In an email correspondence, the sender and recipient are the f
> -Original Message-
> From: John R. Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 10:22 AM
> To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
>
> > What you describe is NOT "coll
2010 7:38 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
[...]
Section 3.4
At last, another idea usefulness is that draft in :
"A possible mitigation to this incompatibility is use of the "l=" tag to bound
the
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
