On 27/Apr/11 21:29, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 4/27/2011 12:17 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> Actually if we're talking about A-R fields, RFC5451 talks plenty
>> about this. Rather than duplicating advice, we should just refer
>> to it.
>
> as long as it's informative rather than normative, that
>> +1, and also for Murray's advice of signing A-R fields.
I still don't understand why, if you trust a signer enough to believe the
mailing list A-R headers he signs, you don't trust him enough to deliver
the mail, and, of course, why we now need to remotely verify contributor
addresses when w
On 4/27/2011 12:17 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Actually if we're talking about A-R fields, RFC5451 talks plenty about this.
> Rather than duplicating advice, we should just refer to it.
as long as it's informative rather than normative, that seems entirely
constructive.
d/
--
Dav
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 11:41 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Two issues derived from Ticket #20: s
On 27/Apr/11 01:42, John R. Levine wrote:
> I agree with Dave's changes,
+1, and also for Murray's advice of signing A-R fields. However, in
such case, the last phrase in Sec 7.2 (INFORMATIVE ADVICE to MUA
filter writers) should be changed from
To circumvent this attack, verifiers may wish to
