Mark Delany wrote:
That this is not in 4871 seems to be mostly a WG assumption that
should be made explicit.
I think several of us thought it was in there, but on review it apparently
was indeed lost somewhere along the way. We've certainly, as I understand
it, been proceeding from that
I've cogitated on this a bit and spoken with a few knowledgeable people.
I'm an operations guy and only marginally a standards wonk.
So, my belief is that this is really more of a 5322 issue than a 4871
issue. Having said that, I'm not comfortable kicking the can down the
road given that what we
At 05:53 04-10-10, Barry Leiba wrote:
Thus begins working group last call on the DKIM-base update,
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-01:
The document should obsolete both RFC 4871 and RFC 5672.
Please update the RFC 2821 and RFC 2822 references to RFC 5321 and
RFC 5322 respectively.
The reference for
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 23:24:11 +0100, President Obama ob...@whitehouse.gov
wrote:
THIS IS A MULTIPLE 5322.FROM SPOOFED MESSAGE
Interestingly, my MUA (Opera) displayed both of those From headers, But I
can quite well understand that many other MUAs don't, and even where they
do I
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 23:24:11 +0100, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
I propose the following addition text by adding to 48721bis to address
this serious issue;
Special Consideration for Verifying and Signing From: Header
As an exception, header hash verification MUST be done for
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 22:16:48 +0100, Murray S. Kucherawy
m...@cloudmark.com wrote:
This version consolidates all of the minor corrections submitted to
date, as well as the more substantive things that appeared to have
consensus.
Of the points I raised, I see that 4.3 still contains the
-Original Message-
From: MH Michael Hammer (5304) [mailto:mham...@ag.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 12:20 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] THIS IS A MULTIPLE 5322.FROM MESSAGE
So, my belief is that this is really more of a 5322
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 4:36 AM
To: DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-03
Of the points I
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 3:47 AM
To: DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: 4871bis - Security Loop hole with Multiple
5322.From
And note that
Mark Delany:
That this is not in 4871 seems to be mostly a WG assumption that
should be made explicit.
I think several of us thought it was in there, but on review it apparently
was indeed lost somewhere along the way. We've certainly, as I understand
it, been proceeding from
On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:47 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
That this is not in 4871 seems to be mostly a WG assumption that
should be made explicit.
I think several of us thought it was in there, but on review it apparently
was indeed lost somewhere along the way. We've certainly, as I understand
On 10/6/2010 8:23 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Of the points I raised, I see that 4.3 still contains the verifier is
requested to discard the message. It is, of course, the receiver that
actually does any discarding.
I don't agree, at least not in the architecture I have in mind. The
On 10/6/2010 8:00 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
It also changes what DKIM means,
...
Either the message has a valid DKIM signature, or it does not. If the
signature is valid, then the signing domain takes responsibility for the
message, subtly malformed or not. Just because the message lacks a
-Original Message-
From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 6:12 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dkim-
mailinglists-03
I suggest saying the holder of the message is
I don't think that's a fair characterization. It is simply wrong to try to
deal this problem in DKIM. For example, a bug in the TCP stack that causes
malformed data to arrive in an application which in turn causes something
visible and unexpected, possibly even something dangerous, to
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of John R. Levine
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 6:17 AM
To: Steve Atkins
Cc: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] THIS IS A MULTIPLE 5322.FROM MESSAGE
Recall that the
On 10/6/2010 9:17 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
Is it DKIM's job to make the verification fail, or is it an MUA's job to do
something reasonable with malformed messages?
At one level, that's merely an implementation choice. At another level, it is
a
question of whether conformance enforcement
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 7:02 AM
To: John R. Levine
Cc: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] THIS IS A MULTIPLE 5322.FROM MESSAGE
I find the
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 10/6/2010 8:00 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
It also changes what DKIM means,
...
Either the message has a valid DKIM signature, or it does not. If the
signature is valid, then the signing domain takes responsibility for the
Apologies all for top posting. Having to use a different client due to
technical difficulties.
Murray, I'm violently agreeing with you that it is not strictly speaking a 4871
issue.
Having said that, I believe that it is an issue that begs the question... where
should it land? You are
On Oct 5, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/05/2010 01:36 PM, John Levine wrote:
Still, though, it's a solution to deal with malformations to which
MUAs are susceptible, and not strictly a DKIM problem.
Would it be a good idea to recommend in 4871bis that DKIM
implementations
The diffs at http://dkim.org/specs/rfc4871-to-bis-diff.htm and the
differences between 4871 and the -00 version of the draft, not the Last
Call revision.
Dave Crocker, can you update the diffs please?
-Jim
On 10/4/10 5:53 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Thus begins working group last call on the
On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:22 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Mark Delany
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 8:06 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] THIS IS A
Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 23:24:11 +0100, President Obama ob...@whitehouse.gov
wrote:
THIS IS A MULTIPLE 5322.FROM SPOOFED MESSAGE
Interestingly, my MUA (Opera) displayed both of those From headers, But I
can quite well understand that many other MUAs
Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 10/6/2010 8:00 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
It also changes what DKIM means,
...
Either the message has a valid DKIM signature, or it does not. If the
signature is valid, then the signing domain takes responsibility for the
message, subtly malformed or
On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 10/6/2010 8:00 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
It also changes what DKIM means,
...
Either the message has a valid DKIM signature, or it does not. If the
signature is valid, then the signing
Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
In particular, it makes the multiple From: issue entirely
irrelevant to DKIM.
Scott Kitterman wrote:
In a normative sense, perhaps, but in real world terms, it doesn't.
Since this does away with It's not valid 5322, so it can't
be valid DKIM, it
On 10/6/2010 1:57 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
Apologies all for top posting. Having to use a different client due to
technical difficulties.
Murray, I'm violently agreeing with you that it is not strictly
speaking a 4871 issue.
Having said that, I believe that it is an issue that
28 matches
Mail list logo
