Re: [Ietf-dkim] Call for adoption results: draft-ietf-dkim-replay-problem Adopted

2023-08-03 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 10:01 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Would this effort be better targeted at the various open source as well as > proprietary implementations of DKIM libraries, to flag if not eliminate the > various edge cases that are being gamed by the spammers? > > > > Rolling out s

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Call for adoption results: draft-ietf-dkim-replay-problem Adopted

2023-08-03 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian
Would this effort be better targeted at the various open source as well as proprietary implementations of DKIM libraries, to flag if not eliminate the various edge cases that are being gamed by the spammers? Rolling out software with a sane set of configuration defaults would typically mean tha

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Call for adoption results: draft-ietf-dkim-replay-problem Adopted

2023-08-03 Thread Laura Atkins
> On 3 Aug 2023, at 16:44, Barry Leiba wrote: > >> A point I was trying to make in earlier posts is that this topic does >> not seem to me to warrant anything close to that much effort on >> producing background text. >> >> Especially when we so far seem to be lacking cohesive effort to >> for

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Call for adoption results: draft-ietf-dkim-replay-problem Adopted

2023-08-03 Thread Barry Leiba
> A point I was trying to make in earlier posts is that this topic does > not seem to me to warrant anything close to that much effort on > producing background text. > > Especially when we so far seem to be lacking cohesive effort to > formulate serious technical and operational 'solutions' and th

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Call for adoption results: draft-ietf-dkim-replay-problem Adopted

2023-08-03 Thread Dave Crocker
On 8/3/2023 1:46 AM, Laura Atkins wrote: Put together a background document - that evolves from the problem statement including all the pieces that you mentioned There are topics and times when this much effort, for a document covering background issues, makes sense.  However producing such a

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Call for adoption results: draft-ietf-dkim-replay-problem Adopted

2023-08-03 Thread Laura Atkins
> On 1 Aug 2023, at 17:00, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 8/1/2023 8:56 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> The eventual product should point back to the problem statement for >> the background information. > > That is certainly a valid approach. However I suggest it's less efficient > for this topic and

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Call for adoption results: draft-ietf-dkim-replay-problem Adopted

2023-08-03 Thread Laura Atkins
I actually think this is a good approach and works well within the charter that we have for the group. Put together a background document - that evolves from the problem statement including all the pieces that you mentioned * problem description * why this wasn’t solved initially * real world