Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
It boggles my mind that a specification called DomainKeys Identified _MAIL_
has to be explicit about the fact that the input is expected to be formatted
like a mail message, and that there's even pressure to say in a normative way
that someone implementing this
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:09 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: [...]
Uh, ok, you're right. I guess I should have stopped arguing since
On 02/Nov/10 22:58, Douglas Otis wrote:
On 11/2/10 11:47 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 01/Nov/10 22:56, Douglas Otis wrote:
If big-bank.com asserts a restrictive policy, the relevant author
address should make that message fail ADSP verification, since no
author domain signature
Presumption of RFC5322 compliance is the mistake made in DKIM and ADSP.
50% agreed. This mistake is only in DKIM, IMHO.
At this point, it would be helpful if you could propose specific language
for 4871bis. And if it's not presuming 5322 compliance, it would also be
helpful if you could say
On 11/3/10 6:28 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 02/Nov/10 22:58, Douglas Otis wrote:
On 11/2/10 11:47 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
If big-bank.com asserts a restrictive policy, the relevant author
address should make that message fail ADSP verification, since no
author domain signature
On 11/2/10 11:47 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 01/Nov/10 22:56, Douglas Otis wrote:
If big-bank.com asserts a restrictive policy, the relevant author
address should make that message fail ADSP verification, since no
author domain signature can be found. Apparently, RFC 5617 already
