Barry Leiba wrote:
I'm not in favour of complicating the protocol, when we can do what we
want to do with what's there. I'd really need to see significant new
use cases to drive any major change here.
+1
On the other hand, I'd see nothing wrong if someone should want to
write a draft
On 10/8/09 12:48 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
Barry Leiba wrote:
I'm not in favour of complicating the protocol, when we can do what we
want to do with what's there. I'd really need to see significant new
use cases to drive any major change here.
+1
On the other hand, I'd see nothing wrong if
On Wednesday 07 October 2009 09:38:37 Doug Otis wrote:
Doug,
I've in favour of a solution to option C) as you describe it: To authorize
mailing lists to better ensure their message's handling while asserting a
(ADSP) policy of all.
Publishing third party allow records on the author domains
Mike says...
All of this is rather academic though: the big guys are signing now because
they can
find some biz justification to do so. Until that biz justification percolates
down,
it doesn't really make much difference what we do. When it does, the DNS
problem
will evaporate.
I think
On 10/7/09 1:36 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
On the other hand, I'd see nothing wrong if someone should want to
write a draft about mailing-list considerations, and propose it as a
working group item. But I'd want to see it as a draft that we can
review, not just as a few ideas in an email message.
Barry Leiba wrote:
I'm not in favour of complicating the protocol, when we can do what we
want to do with what's there. I'd really need to see significant new
use cases to drive any major change here.
DKIM implementation is already complex and confusing. The goal of
policy was to make it
- Barry Leiba barryleiba.mailing.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike says...
All of this is rather academic though: the big guys are signing now
because they can
find some biz justification to do so. Until that biz justification
percolates down,
it doesn't really make much difference what
On 10/5/09 5:38 PM, John Levine wrote:
In light of the comments by Bill Oxley and my belief that the ability of
a domain to designate signing by a specified 3rd party is useful, ...
It would really be helpful if you two could explain WHY you think it's
useful. Given the way that DKIM works,
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Cc: mham...@ag.com
Subject: [ietf-dkim] The mystery of third party signatures
In light of the comments by Bill Oxley and my belief that the ability of
a domain to designate signing by a specified 3rd party is useful, ...
It would really be helpful if you two could explain
On 10/06/2009 10:30 AM, bill.ox...@cox.com wrote:
C) I can sell the ability to do 3rd party DKIM signing for those companies
who are described in A)
If you're getting paid for signing somebody else's traffic, doesn't
it make sense that the service can do some hand holding to get their
DNS set
Just on 3rd party signing and mainly for my own benefit (and hopefully yours) I
see a few cases I'll try to describe.
1) I send an email to a mailing list, I first party dkim sign the email
Considering mailman behavior, what does it do with this email?
-It could resend it as is, adding a third
...@mtcc.com
To: Bill Oxleybill.ox...@cox.com
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org, mham...@ag.com
Sent: Wednesday, 7 October, 2009 8:46:57 AM GMT +12:00 Fiji
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] The mystery of third party signatures
On 10/06/2009 10:30 AM, bill.ox...@cox.com wrote:
C) I can sell the ability to do 3rd party
On 10/6/09 1:46 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/06/2009 10:30 AM, bill.ox...@cox.com wrote:
C) I can sell the ability to do 3rd party DKIM signing for those companies
who are described in A)
If you're getting paid for signing somebody else's traffic, doesn't
it make sense that the service
In light of the comments by Bill Oxley and my belief that the ability of
a domain to designate signing by a specified 3rd party is useful, ...
It would really be helpful if you two could explain WHY you think it's
useful. Given the way that DKIM works, there's only two possible
benefits from
14 matches
Mail list logo
