* Bill Cole:
> There's no need to watch, if you can imagine what it would look like
> from the description in the specification of how to include non-existent
> headers in a signature.
I'm aware of RFC 4871 section 5.4. "The From header field MUST be
signed", so here's where signing non-existin
On 20 Apr 2019, at 6:38, Ralph Seichter wrote:
Signing a non-existing (!) header. Right. Mind if I watch? :-)
There's no need to watch, if you can imagine what it would look like
from the description in the specification of how to include non-existent
headers in a signature.
The purpose of
On 20/04/2019 14:59, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/20/19 8:08 AM, Reto wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 07:31:06AM -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> Where the issue comes is with DMARC, which restricts the DKIM protocol
>>> to be aligned with the From line of the message, and thus the MLM can't
>>>
On 4/20/19 8:08 AM, Reto wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 07:31:06AM -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>> Where the issue comes is with DMARC, which restricts the DKIM protocol
>> to be aligned with the From line of the message, and thus the MLM can't
>> make the message pass the DMARC settings of the se
On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 07:31:06AM -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
> Where the issue comes is with DMARC, which restricts the DKIM protocol
> to be aligned with the From line of the message, and thus the MLM can't
> make the message pass the DMARC settings of the sending domain. It is
> DMARC which bre
On 4/19/19 11:22 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2019, at 22:50, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>> Note also, these RFCs are just Standards Track, which says that they are
>> not yet 'full standards' but still evolving, and I believe that one of
>> the issues that needs to be worked out is to figure out h
* Peter:
> Granted in this particular case, and given what Sender is for, it
> probably shouldn't be signed if it's not present, but the RFC does not
> make that explicitly clear, and I would not hold someone at fault for
> signing the Sender header based on what that RFC says.
Signing a non-e
Dominic, you should get the mails now, don't you?
On 20 April 2019 12:04:30 Dominic Raferd wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 14:11, Benny Pedersen wrote:
i have now disabled milters from trusted maillists ips
How did you do this? It might help me. I have missed some of this thread
because OP'
On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 at 11:18, TG Servers wrote:
>
> Dominic, you should get the mails now, don't you?
>
> On 20 April 2019 12:04:30 Dominic Raferd wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 14:11, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>>
>>> i have now disabled milters from trusted maillists ips
>>>
>>
>> How did you
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 14:11, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> i have now disabled milters from trusted maillists ips
>
How did you do this? It might help me. I have missed some of this thread
because OP's mails are blocked (correctly of course) by my opendmarc.
10 matches
Mail list logo
