On 1/12/2015 10:25 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
Seems the score for key 1024 needs to oppose the DKIM score so the
end result is zero.
That's an interesting idea but I think the project is likely to make the
rule available with a minimal score for the admin to decide.
We are working more and
On Jan 11, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com
wrote:
I disagree as well. You can't cherry pick your quotes and you are
missing
the long-lived caveat as well as the next sentence: Verifiers MUST be
able
to validate signatures with keys ranging from 512 bits to 2048 bits
If it
Actually the rfc specifies that keys 512 to 2048 bits must be verified so I
think there is a grey area and there is this long-lived key caveat as well.
I think if we can make a rule that fires on 1024 bits it's would be good. The
score may not be much but it could be helpful.
Regards,
KAM
On
On Jan 12, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
On January 12, 2015 8:06:00 AM EST, Mark Martinec
It would be wrong to assign score to short keys.
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Actually the rfc specifies that keys 512 to 2048 bits must be verified
so I think there is a
On January 12, 2015 8:06:00 AM EST, Mark Martinec
It would be wrong to assign score to short keys.
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Actually the rfc specifies that keys 512 to 2048 bits must be verified
so I think there is a grey area and there is this long-lived key
caveat as well.
I think if we
On 1/10/2015 4:01 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
opendkim have minimal keysize of 1024, else its considered invalid, so
i am asking should Mail::DKIM follow this as valid or invalid even if
the key check is PASS ?
this leads to spamassassin VALID, but opendkim testing INVALID
hmm
A quick Google
On 1/11/2015 12:45 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2015-01-11 18:16:
A quick Google search brings up this
https://wordtothewise.com/2012/11/how-long-is-your-dkim-key/
It's a recommendation not a requirement so the pass even when lower
than 1024 is accurate.
bug created,
Am 11.01.2015 um 18:16 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 1/10/2015 4:01 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
opendkim have minimal keysize of 1024, else its considered invalid, so
i am asking should Mail::DKIM follow this as valid or invalid even if
the key check is PASS ?
this leads to spamassassin VALID,
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2015-01-11 18:16:
A quick Google search brings up this
https://wordtothewise.com/2012/11/how-long-is-your-dkim-key/
It's a recommendation not a requirement so the pass even when lower
than 1024 is accurate.
bug created, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendkim/bugs/215/
Kevin A. McGrail:
https://wordtothewise.com/2012/11/how-long-is-your-dkim-key/
It's a recommendation not a requirement so the pass even when lower
than 1024 is accurate.
I disagree.
Lauras article is more then two years old. But since more then 4 years
( Sep 2011 )
RFC 6376 say very
On Jan 11, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com wrote:
I disagree as well. You can't cherry pick your quotes and you are missing the
long-lived caveat as well as the next sentence: Verifiers MUST be able to
validate signatures with keys ranging from 512 bits to 2048 bits
On 1/11/2015 10:04 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
On Jan 11, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com wrote:
I disagree as well. You can't cherry pick your quotes and you are missing the
long-lived caveat as well as the next sentence: Verifiers MUST be able to
validate signatures with
I disagree as well. You can't cherry pick your quotes and you are missing the
long-lived caveat as well as the next sentence: Verifiers MUST be able to
validate signatures with keys ranging from 512 bits to 2048 bits
If it is 512 to 2048, I think the rfc is clear for recipients.
Regards,
KAM
opendkim have minimal keysize of 1024, else its considered invalid, so i
am asking should Mail::DKIM follow this as valid or invalid even if the
key check is PASS ?
this leads to spamassassin VALID, but opendkim testing INVALID
hmm
14 matches
Mail list logo
