On Tuesday 31 August 2010 06:53:59 Jeff Macdonald wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:17 PM, J.D. Falk
>
> wrote:
> > So what we SHOULD be arguing about (those of us interested in forward
> > progress) is whether draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02 meets the
> > documentation goal Rolf described above
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:17 PM, J.D. Falk
wrote:
> So what we SHOULD be arguing about (those of us interested in forward
> progress) is whether draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02 meets the documentation
> goal Rolf described above.
Nits:
existing misspelled below:
o What are the tradeoffs rega
On Aug 24, 2010, at 1:07 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Rolf E. Sonneveld [mailto:r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl]
[ . . . ]
>> We should not change the
>> essentials of DKIM for sake of MLM transparancy; the best we can do is
>> document the status quo of
And ANY non-valid signature must be treated as if it were not present in the
message at all. The fact that an MLM breaks a signature is not unique for MLMs.
Any agent in the path between signer(s) and verifier(s) can break a signature.
Let's keep it clear: a broken signature is to be ignored (b
On 8/25/10 5:32 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
> Sonneveld, Rolf wrote:
>> Let's keep it clear: a broken signature is to be ignored
>> (base DKIM spec). But removing signatures without a good reason
>> is wrong.
> A good reason is to lower the confusion of an unknown assessment
> world, especially when
Sonneveld, Rolf wrote:
> Let's keep it clear: a broken signature is to be ignored
> (base DKIM spec). But removing signatures without a good reason
> is wrong.
A good reason is to lower the confusion of an unknown assessment
world, especially when the LAST SIGNER is taking responsibility and i
On 25-08-10, Hector Santos wrote:Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:> Although DKIM does not specify (as far as I know) what to do with DKIM > signatures in inner bodyparts, I think DKIM signatures should never be > removed without a good reason.If you believe this, then you have to advocate the removal of t
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:47:20 +0100, Hector Santos wrote:
> Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
>
>> Although DKIM does not specify (as far as I know) what to do with DKIM
>> signatures in inner bodyparts, I think DKIM signatures should never be
>> removed without a good reason.
>
> If you believe this, then
Hector Santos wrote:
> Dave,
>
> The term "Reputation Filtering Engines" (RFE) is understood in what it
> means. Currently proprietary solutions.
>
> Absolutely wrong with that.
Sorry, missing word - "Absolutely NOTHING wrong with that"
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http:
Dave,
The term "Reputation Filtering Engines" (RFE) is understood in what it
means. Currently proprietary solutions.
Absolutely wrong with that. But if you are saying this include policy
or more specifically the IETF DKIM Working Group work item RFC 5617,
this I don't see a problem in your s
Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
> Although DKIM does not specify (as far as I know) what to do with DKIM
> signatures in inner bodyparts, I think DKIM signatures should never be
> removed without a good reason.
If you believe this, then you have to advocate the removal of the RFC
4871 mandate regardi
Mark Delany wrote:
>> Steve Atkins:
>> I don't see how DKIM can provide the obverse - the obvious way
>> is for a sender to assert that all their mail has a DKIM signature,
>> but that fails when the DKIM signature breaks in transit. Is there
>> a clever trick I'm missing?
>
> So you're saying it
MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
[...]
> In any event, I perceive MLMs as the tail that appears to be wagging the dog.
> In the context of email authentication, there are so many much more
> interesting mail streams from my perspective.
>
+1
>>> The DKIM signature
>>> provides a simple piec
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:05:38 +0100, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Not really, since it was known from the start that survival through an
> MLM is
> highly problematic and the steps towards helping survival were known to
> be quite
> limited.
Nevertheless, there IS a solution that MLMs can use which
On Aug 24, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Mark Delany wrote:
As a part-time MTA developer I am not confused. The DKIM signature
provides a simple piece of trace information ("I handled this mail")
that is cryptographically bound to some header and body content.
>>>
>>> Yes. And that the obvers
> >> As a part-time MTA developer I am not confused. The DKIM signature
> >> provides a simple piece of trace information ("I handled this mail")
> >> that is cryptographically bound to some header and body content.
> >
> > Yes. And that the obverse is possible: "I didn't handle this mail".
>
> I
> -Original Message-
> From: Rolf E. Sonneveld [mailto:r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:31 PM
> To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
> Cc: MH Michael Hammer (5304); ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists and s/mime &
Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 8/24/2010 11:59 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>
>> Then it would appear that we are substantially in violent agreement.
>>
>
>
> in spite of our best efforts.
>
may I suggest we stop here for a moment and get back to the original
question, which in essenc
On Aug 24, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 09:45:20AM -0400, Wietse Venema allegedly wrote:
>> Hector Santos:
>>> IMO, it is these statements that continues to raise confusion and
>>> raise the barrier of industry wide adoption that includes the general
>>> populat
On 8/24/2010 11:59 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> Then it would appear that we are substantially in violent agreement.
in spite of our best efforts.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
NOTE WELL: This list op
> d/
>
> ps. If we have correctly identified the core disparity as being
between
> my use
> of the word "reputationa" which I meant extremely broadly as a synonym
for
> "assessment" and your preference for using it only as a narrow and
> subordinate
> term under some more generic label, then I th
On 8/23/10 8:05 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> On 8/21/2010 6:06 PM, Daniel Black wrote:
> > Taking an approach saying we don't care if DKIM survives MLMs is a
> > step in the opposite direction. This is not a proposal I support.
>
> Not really, since it was known from the start that survival thro
On 8/24/2010 10:43 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> One can assess based on policy rather than reputation. In fact I can
> think of several companies that popped up recently in this general space
> (email authentication) to do just that.
That sounds as if the primary concern was with my use
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 09:45:20AM -0400, Wietse Venema allegedly wrote:
> Hector Santos:
> > IMO, it is these statements that continues to raise confusion and
> > raise the barrier of industry wide adoption that includes the general
> > population of MTA developers and operators from tiny to small
And the bell rings for the next round
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 12:32 PM
> To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists and s/mime &
On 8/24/2010 9:11 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>>> But again, no verbage that matches your assertion.
>>
>> I wasn't aware that my statement was offered as a quotation. I
>> certainly didn't intend it to be.
>
> Your statement was taken (at least by me) as an assertion that begged for
> s
Let's rock!
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 11:54 AM
> To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists and s/mime & dkim signat
On 8/24/2010 6:42 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> Please show us in RFC4871 where it says DKIMs main purpose is assessment
> by reputation filtering engines.
It's a fair question, but answering it encounters three core problems.
The first is that 4871 is not a systems specification. It's
Hector Santos:
> IMO, it is these statements that continues to raise confusion and
> raise the barrier of industry wide adoption that includes the general
> population of MTA developers and operators from tiny to small to even
> large.
As a part-time MTA developer I am not confused. The DKIM si
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 11:06 PM
> To: Daniel Black
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Mailing li
Dave CROCKER wrote:
> DKIM's main purpose is assessment by reputation filtering engines.
Is this locked in stone as the only utilization of DKIM now and into
the future? Is POLICY (an "official" WG work product where reputation
concepts are not), no longer included as part of a possible purp
On 8/21/2010 6:06 PM, Daniel Black wrote:
> Taking an approach saying we don't care if DKIM survives MLMs
> is a step in the opposite direction. This is not a proposal I support.
Not really, since it was known from the start that survival through an MLM is
highly problematic and the steps towar
>> l= over substantial opposition under the theory that it would compensate
>> for a significant fraction of MLM modifications. I think we now have
>> found that was overoptimistic. The right thing to do is to deprecate
>> l=, not make more mistakes.
>This is, as usual, shamelessly wrong. We
On Monday 23 August 2010 02:18:25 you wrote:
> > At a conceptual level how the MUA shows validity information is important
> > going by John's descriptions. In the quick illistration here S/MIME
> > sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Enhancing the MUA display with
> > DKIM validity information
>> failure to show the signature is due to bugs in user MUA's S/MIME code.
>> S/MIME has been around for a decade, and I've been a little surprised to
>> find that the support in MUAs is so buggy once you get beyond the simplest
>> cases.
>
> Looking at this list of RFC's required to implement it I
Michael Thomas wrote:
> We showed that over 90% of mlm signatures could be verified.
Any insight, breakdown or feel for that 10% failure? Multiple hops
for downlinks? More resigners, buggy DKIM verifiers? Was these all
DKIM or did it include DKEY?
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronic
John R. Levine wrote:
I'm sorry, this gets the history wrong. We had a lot of arguments about
> this when we were doing 4871, and I believe you will find that we added
> l= over substantial opposition under the theory that it would compensate
> for a significant fraction of MLM modifications.
At a conceptual level how the MUA shows validity information is important
going by John's descriptions. In the quick illistration here S/MIME sometimes
works and sometimes doesn't. Enhancing the MUA display with DKIM validity
information could be an important differenciator for an end user.
Base
Daniel Black wrote:
>> So I suggest we update the DKIM MLM draft to take out all the stuff about
>> signatures surviving lists, and just say that if it's important for your
>> signature to survive,
>
> The DKIM standard has gone a long way to ensure interoperatibility and the
> ability to surviv
> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 23:27:05 -0400 (EDT)
> We've had a lot of arguments about the importance of verifying the identity
> of contributors to mailing lists. If you think that's important, take a
> look at this message.
>
> Even though Mailman has added a subject line tag and a message footer,
40 matches
Mail list logo
