On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 2:46 PM, SM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 09:14 24-02-2008, Hector Santos wrote:
> >Pray tell, are you aware this tells the MTA who are processing the
> >payload at the SMTP DATA state (not POST SMTP), to issue a 250
> >positive message accept response code with the tr
At 09:14 24-02-2008, Hector Santos wrote:
>Pray tell, are you aware this tells the MTA who are processing the
>payload at the SMTP DATA state (not POST SMTP), to issue a 250
>positive message accept response code with the true purpose of
>silently discarding it?
Yes.
>So its more of a
At 09:
Hector Santos wrote:
>
> Pray tell, are you aware this tells the MTA who are processing the
> payload at the SMTP DATA state (not POST SMTP), to issue a 250 positive
> message accept response code with the true purpose of silently
> discarding it?
>
> So its more of a
>
> PUBLIC REJECT n
SM wrote:
> If the group wants to keep discardable, I suggest a change in
> Section 3.3:
>
> "discardable All mail from the domain is signed with an Author
>Signature. Furthermore, if a message arrives without a valid
>Author Signature due to modification in transit, submi
> a path without access to a signing key, or other reason, the
> domain encourages the recipient(s) to discard it instead of
> sending a "bounce".
No, they should discard it, period. As I said in my previous message,
enough rejects turn into blowback to be part of the p
At 16:43 20-02-2008, Thom O'Connor wrote:
>However, it is very important that the terminology in use here is
>accurate and appropriate. The global messaging user-base wants and
>expects guidance on implementation that should be clear and direct. The
>truth of the matter is, the discarding of email
m O'Connor
Sent: Wed 2/20/2008 7:43 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-02.txt Discardable/Exclusive
Eric Allman wrote:
> I am in no way married to the word DISCARDABLE. We used it in SSP-02
> because it matched ASP.
>
> It has occurred to
Eric Allman wrote:
> I am in no way married to the word DISCARDABLE. We used it in SSP-02
> because it matched ASP.
>
> It has occurred to me that we've spent FAR too much time arguing
> about exactly what word to use. I'm deeply tempted to switch to
> numbers, special characters, or random g
Wietse Venema wrote:
Michael Thomas:
Well I think that's perfectly prudent too. What I was reacting to is this
notion that I have to "know" the domain in question to assign those
weights -- whatever it means to "know". The ag example is a good
one where I'm nearly certain that I don't "know"
Michael Thomas:
> Eliot Lear wrote:
> > Wietse Venema wrote:
> >> You do what you want to do.
> >>
> >> I would hope that receivers don't discard mail simply because the
> >> domain owner says so. Instead, I would hope that their hint goes
> >> into a weighting process together with other indicator
Eliot Lear wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
You do what you want to do.
I would hope that receivers don't discard mail simply because the
domain owner says so. Instead, I would hope that their hint goes
into a weighting process together with other indicators.
Ain't nothing wrong with this appro
Wietse Venema wrote:
You do what you want to do.
I would hope that receivers don't discard mail simply because the
domain owner says so. Instead, I would hope that their hint goes
into a weighting process together with other indicators.
Ain't nothing wrong with this approach. If someone wa
Steve Atkins wrote:
On Feb 8, 2008, at 6:13 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
MH Michael Hammer (5304):
Is DKIM checking sufficient in itself without SSP? How might DKIM-SSP
help receivers (the 3 aforementioned as well as others) leverage their
evaluation of received email wheth
Wietse Venema wrote:
Michael Thomas:
Wietse Venema wrote:
MH Michael Hammer (5304):
Is DKIM checking sufficient in itself without SSP? How might DKIM-SSP
help receivers (the 3 aforementioned as well as others) leverage their
evaluation of received email whether signed (valid or not) or unsigne
Michael Thomas:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > MH Michael Hammer (5304):
> >> Is DKIM checking sufficient in itself without SSP? How might DKIM-SSP
> >> help receivers (the 3 aforementioned as well as others) leverage their
> >> evaluation of received email whether signed (valid or not) or unsigned?
>
On Feb 8, 2008, at 6:13 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
MH Michael Hammer (5304):
Is DKIM checking sufficient in itself without SSP? How might DKIM-
SSP
help receivers (the 3 aforementioned as well as others) leverage
their
evaluation of received email whether signed (valid o
Wietse Venema wrote:
MH Michael Hammer (5304):
Is DKIM checking sufficient in itself without SSP? How might DKIM-SSP
help receivers (the 3 aforementioned as well as others) leverage their
evaluation of received email whether signed (valid or not) or unsigned?
"known to be good" whitelisting ca
MH Michael Hammer (5304):
> Is the potential benefit afforded a receiver by checking that SSP
> assertion AND taking whatever (unspecified) action worth the effort
> of doing so? If receivers are likely to have little or no
> benefit/interest in checking SSP then the rest of the discussion
> is moo
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
>Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 6:37 PM
>To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
>Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-02.txt
>Discardable/Exclusive
>
>MH Mic
MH Michael Hammer (5304):
> If a domain chooses to sign DKIM with respect to a From field email
> address that purports to be from that domain and that domain has the
> ability to make an assertion (of any sort) through SSP with regard to
> it's practices:
>
> Is the potential benefit afforded a r
Steve Atkins:
> My original observation was that "discardable" was a reasonable term
> for mail for which the sender prefer the recipient not deliver a small
> fraction of legitimate email and a small fraction of non-legitimate
> email rather than deliver either.
>
> There was an assertion m
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
>Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 4:49 PM
>To: DKIM List
>Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-02.txt
>Discardable/Exclusive
>
>
>
>My original obser
On Feb 8, 2008, at 1:41 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
You can't say "receiver checking DKIM and/or SPF would stop 100%
of fraudulent emails" and then redefine "fraudulent emails" as "mails
stopped by receiver checking of DKIM and/or SPF".
DKIM+SSP will only ever stop a tiny fra
Steve Atkins wrote:
You can't say "receiver checking DKIM and/or SPF would stop 100%
of fraudulent emails" and then redefine "fraudulent emails" as "mails
stopped by receiver checking of DKIM and/or SPF".
DKIM+SSP will only ever stop a tiny fraction of "illegitimate" emails,
and pretending other
On Feb 8, 2008, at 1:19 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
I'm referring to mail that would be checked by DKIM against the From
email address (not the pretty name). My bad for assuming the scope of
the discussion was limited to what DKIM and DKIM-SSP can actually
address. If that isn't the sc
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
>Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 3:56 PM
>To: DKIM List
>Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-02.txt
>Discardable/Exclusive
>
>
>On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:
On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:18 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
It's an assertion that the sender would prefer that the
recipient not deliver some small fraction of legitimate email
as well as some small fraction of illegitimate email, rather
than delivering those small fractions of legitimate an
On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
Don't expect all high profile domains wish to suffer a reduction in
delivery integrity when attempting to better protect their domain's
recipients.
Domains that do not with to suffer a reduction in delivery integrity
are not candidates for
On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Eric Allman wrote:
Doug,
I am in no way married to the word DISCARDABLE. We used it in
SSP-02 because it matched ASP.
It has occurred to me that we've spent FAR too much time arguing
about exactly what word
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
>Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 2:28 PM
>To: DKIM List
>Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-02.txt
>Discardable/Exclusive
>
>
>It's an assertio
On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Eric Allman wrote:
Doug,
I am in no way married to the word DISCARDABLE. We used it in
SSP-02 because it matched ASP.
It has occurred to me that we've spent FAR too much time arguing
about exactly what word to use. I'm deeply tempted to switch to
numbers,
Doug,
I am in no way married to the word DISCARDABLE. We used it in SSP-02
because it matched ASP.
It has occurred to me that we've spent FAR too much time arguing
about exactly what word to use. I'm deeply tempted to switch to
numbers, special characters, or random gibberish strings so th
On Feb 7, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Eric Allman wrote:
The EXCLUSIVE concept can still be covered using DKIM=DISCARDABLE.
Except that DISCARDABLE doesn't prohibit 3PS. It doesn't even say
that messages without any signatures MUST or even SHOULD be
discarded. All it says is how the purported auth
33 matches
Mail list logo
