Ian Eiloart wrote:
I guess it would be nice if list servers could use OAuth to authenticate my
subscription requests against my mail infrastructure, and then my servers
would recognise and record the request. Then it could treat messages from
the list with a higher trust level, and -for
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:52:29 +0100, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
If the original was
From: Joe Doe j...@discardable.example
and a recipient sees it as
From: Joe Doe joe%discardable.exam...@mlm.example
then he will still have a pretty clear idea that it originated from Joe
Doe,
--On 17 August 2010 19:14:30 + John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
I'm trying to get the same goal by recommending adding some
non-artisicly specified form of a list: mlm.example display so its
more evident to the user without percentage hacks.
I must be missing something. What does
On Monday 16 August 2010 20:25:16 Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 04:50:13 +0100, Daniel Black
daniel.s...@internode.on.net wrote:
If users are to place value in From headers as MUAs display and ADSP
tries to
enforce then manguling From headers is adds complexity to the
I'm trying to get the same goal by recommending adding some non-artisicly
specified form of a list: mlm.example display so its more evident to the
user without percentage hacks.
I must be missing something. What does this have to do with DKIM?
If this were important, why don't MUAs look for
Daniel Black wrote:
On Tuesday 17 August 2010 01:18:52 Hector Santos wrote:
I think which keeps getting in the way here in molding ideas is that
much of it is based on online MUA access which does not always match
Offline MUA access,
I was going on a desireable assumption that a verifier
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 04:50:13 +0100, Daniel Black
daniel.s...@internode.on.net wrote:
If users are to place value in From headers as MUAs display and ADSP
tries to
enforce then manguling From headers is adds complexity to the
interpretion of
the header field by to the end user.
If the
If the original was
From: Joe Doe j...@discardable.example
and a recipient sees it as
From: Joe Doe joe%discardable.exam...@mlm.example
then he will still have a pretty clear idea that it originated from Joe
Doe, ...
Actually, in both cases, most MUAs will show:
From John Doe
It's the
Charles Lindsey wrote:
Somehow, MUAs need to be aware of which lists the user is subscribed to if
they are going to do that sort of thing.
I think which keeps getting in the way here in molding ideas is that
much of it is based on online MUA access which does not always match
Offline MUA
On 8/15/2010 6:25 PM, Daniel Black wrote:
email identity is an ambiguous term.
All sorts of value-added enhancements might be possible, on top of DKIM,
but protecting email identity isn't really what DKIM is defined to do.
rfc4781 Abstract - last sentence. Still abstract however this was a
On Tuesday 17 August 2010 01:18:52 Hector Santos wrote:
I think which keeps getting in the way here in molding ideas is that
much of it is based on online MUA access which does not always match
Offline MUA access,
I was going on a desireable assumption that a verifier would add a
I was going on a desireable assumption that a verifier would add a
Authenticated-Results header field and online/offline MUAs could
depend on this if it falls within the right domain or its domain is
accepted by a user.
You are aware, I hope, that nothing in an Authenticated-Results header
has
On 8/14/2010 8:50 PM, Daniel Black wrote:
I intially saw a need for a MUA considerations because:
* I still hope DKIM will help protect email identity
email identity is an ambiguous term.
All sorts of value-added enhancements might be possible, on top of DKIM, but
protecting email identity
I intially saw a need for a MUA considerations because:
* I still hope DKIM will help protect email identity
* end users rely, or should rely, on their MUA to present verified identity
information in an easily digestable way.
* MLMs break signatures and MUA will still need to present verified
14 matches
Mail list logo
