Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

On 3/25/23 8:17 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Fri, Mar 24, 2023, 10:10 Michael Thomas wrote: On 3/24/23 9:58 AM, Laura Atkins wrote: On 24 Mar 2023, at 16:48, Michael Thomas wrote: On 3/24/23 6:14 AM, Laura Atkins wrote: Please, let’s

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

On Fri, Mar 24, 2023, 10:10 Michael Thomas wrote: > On 3/24/23 9:58 AM, Laura Atkins wrote: > > > On 24 Mar 2023, at 16:48, Michael Thomas > wrote: > > > On 3/24/23 6:14 AM, Laura Atkins wrote: > > Please, let’s focus on the current issue with is addressing and refining > the problem

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

On 3/24/23 9:58 AM, Laura Atkins wrote: On 24 Mar 2023, at 16:48, Michael Thomas wrote: On 3/24/23 6:14 AM, Laura Atkins wrote: Please, let’s focus on the current issue with is addressing  and refining the problem statement. So you agree with me that any discussion of ARC and its

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

> On 24 Mar 2023, at 16:48, Michael Thomas wrote: > > > On 3/24/23 6:14 AM, Laura Atkins wrote: >> Please, let’s focus on the current issue with is addressing and refining >> the problem statement. > > So you agree with me that any discussion of ARC and its complete failings > should be

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

On 3/24/23 6:14 AM, Laura Atkins wrote: Please, let’s focus on the current issue with is addressing  and refining the problem statement. So you agree with me that any discussion of ARC and its complete failings should be out of scope? I would appreciate the chairs enforcing that. Mike

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

Please, let’s focus on the current issue with is addressing and refining the problem statement. laura > On 23 Mar 2023, at 20:27, Michael Thomas wrote: > > > On 3/23/23 2:52 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> On Wed 22/Mar/2023 20:31:51 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote: >>> On 3/21/23 8:01 PM,

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

On 3/23/23 2:52 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: On Wed 22/Mar/2023 20:31:51 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote: On 3/21/23 8:01 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: 1. What percent of incoming email to a mailbox is through     resenders and of that what percent resign? By "resign" you mean

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

On Wed 22/Mar/2023 20:31:51 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote: On 3/21/23 8:01 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: 1. What percent of incoming email to a mailbox is through     resenders and of that what percent resign? By "resign" you mean something that has signatures from two domains,

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

On 3/21/23 8:01 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: There was one prior answer to this.  Here's another. There's a claim here that the problem statement(s) is/are too vague.  I'm a little worried that tightening up the problem definition along these 20 vectors will give us such a tight problem

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

On 3/22/2023 11:22 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: Do you believe knowing the answer to this question would allow us to amend the problem statement to something that might allow a protocol solution? That sounds reasonable.  However it might actually represent scope-creep for a Problem

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

On 3/22/23 12:57 AM, Evan Burke wrote: Murray's answers are largely correct. I'll fill in some additional detail below. On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:10 AM Michael Thomas wrote: > 3. Do senders filter outbound traffic for spam? > 4. Do spammers who get a piece of email signed by a sender

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

On 3/22/23 11:22 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 8:37 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: >>    1.  Do receivers keep tabs on which users are using things like >>    mailing lists to differentiate users who expect to get indirect mail vs >>    those who don't?

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 8:37 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > > >>1. Do receivers keep tabs on which users are using things like > >>mailing lists to differentiate users who expect to get indirect mail > vs > >>those who don't? > >> > >> The large mailbox operators might have hints about

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

Murray's answers are largely correct. I'll fill in some additional detail below. On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:10 AM Michael Thomas wrote: > 3. Do senders filter outbound traffic for spam? > 4. Do spammers who get a piece of email signed by a sender also send mail to target domains to see if it

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

On March 22, 2023 3:01:40 AM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" wrote: >There was one prior answer to this. Here's another. > >There's a claim here that the problem statement(s) is/are too vague. I'm a >little worried that tightening up the problem definition along these 20 >vectors will give us

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

There was one prior answer to this. Here's another. There's a claim here that the problem statement(s) is/are too vague. I'm a little worried that tightening up the problem definition along these 20 vectors will give us such a tight problem statement that any solution is so targeted as to be of

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

On 3/10/23 11:21 AM, Emanuel Schorsch wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:11 AM Michael Thomas wrote: I've said in multiple threads that the current problem both in the charter and the problem draft are far too vague for us to address. Here are some from me at least: 1. Who

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:11 AM Michael Thomas wrote: > > I've said in multiple threads that the current problem both in the charter > and the problem draft are far too vague for us to address. Here are some > from me at least: > >1. Who are the victims? Just bulk senders? Are the bulk

[Ietf-dkim] Clarifying the problem

I've said in multiple threads that the current problem both in the charter and the problem draft are far too vague for us to address. Here are some from me at least: 1. Who are the victims? Just bulk senders? Are the bulk senders signing using their domain? 2. If there are different types