Yes, I was aware an AD can participate in a WG, but was not sure if
the AD can do so in a WG where there might be proposed working items
authored by the AD. A recusal consideration for a conflict, if any,
would be the proper recourse.
Thanks for your fair responses. I appreciate it.
--
On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 9:51 PM Jim Fenton wrote:
> That was basically the argument against the l= parameter in DKIM
> signatures. We did end up keeping l= because it only has effect if the
> signer uses it and the verifier accepts its use, although it was widely
> expected that it would not be
On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 7:42 PM John Levine wrote:
> I wrote the Sympa ARC code which is entwined with the DKIM code so
> that would probably be me. Honestly, this looks like a lot more work
> than ARC to get a result likely to be worse in practice than ARC.
>
Interesting; I had the opposite
On 7/5/20 7:42 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> It would not be hard for a bad guy to use the footer or add-part
> transformation to lay a big spammy blob on top of some innocuous
> original message. Rather than play cat and mouse and try to figure one
> when a change is too big, recipients would use
On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 8:35 PM Hector Santos wrote:
> 1) Curious, are these Mail List Server (MLS) developers active
> participants of the WG list? Lurkers? Was there a consideration to
> include a MLS developer participant that is active in the WG? I'm sure
> you are aware SSI (Santronics
1) Curious, are these Mail List Server (MLS) developers active
participants of the WG list? Lurkers? Was there a consideration to
include a MLS developer participant that is active in the WG? I'm sure
you are aware SSI (Santronics Software, Inc) has a MLS albeit
commercial, not free, not
In article
you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>I decided to breathe life into this idea since it's relevant and got some
>discussion recently. Comments welcome.
>
>I'm talking to the Mailman people about the idea now; this is based on some
>things they mentioned. I haven't managed to get the attention
On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 3:48 PM Jeremy Harris wrote:
> On 05/07/2020 23:39, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > Any opinion on the whole thing generally?
>
> Certainly worthy of discussion. I wonder if it needs tying
> to ARC rather than, or in addition to DKIM?
>
I think it solves the same problem
On 05/07/2020 23:39, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Any opinion on the whole thing generally?
Certainly worthy of discussion. I wonder if it needs tying
to ARC rather than, or in addition to DKIM?
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
___
dmarc mailing list
On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 3:31 PM Jeremy Harris wrote:
> On 05/07/2020 22:56, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dkim-transform-01
>
> Substansive:
>
> section 6, on footers:
> - Is not a common boundary marker a signature-marker, namely
> two dashes,
On 05/07/2020 22:56, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dkim-transform-01
Substansive:
section 6, on footers:
- Is not a common boundary marker a signature-marker, namely
two dashes, space, end-of-line? The exim-users list, for
example, uses that.
Nit:
I decided to breathe life into this idea since it's relevant and got some
discussion recently. Comments welcome.
I'm talking to the Mailman people about the idea now; this is based on some
things they mentioned. I haven't managed to get the attention of Sympa or
L-Soft yet.
-MSK
--
12 matches
Mail list logo
