On August 8, 2023 2:08:05 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> wrote: >On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 2:16 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon 07/Aug/2023 23:52:02 +0000 Scott Kitterman wrote: >> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 7:47:47 PM EDT Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> >> >> >> I think the document does describe the attack. An instance of the >> attack >> >> is when a replayed message lands someplace it wasn't originally >> intended to >> >> land, assuming normal usage. >> >> That's ambiguous. Obviously, since the attack was planned, it may well be >> that the potential victims were originally intended. The meaning is >> tweaked by the "normal usage" assumption, which could be interpreted as >> trying to pretend that the message author wasn't aware that the message >> was >> going to be replayed...? >> > >I don't understand what ambiguity you're talking about. > >The document lays out how the attack is accomplished. It also indicates >that the only difference between typical DKIM operation (the original >recipient set is the only recipient set) and the attack (the final >recipient set is not the same). ...
That's true of all indirect mail flows. It's not a distinguishing feature of the attack. Scott K _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
