On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Jim Fenton fen...@cisco.com wrote:
There's a Working Group Last Call in effect for -01. Should we:
- Continue to direct comments at -01
- Comment on -02 instead
- or will the WGLC be restarted on the -02 draft?
I think it's not necessary for us to restart,
On 10/11/2010 11:46 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Dave:
There's an error in the new paragraph in section 5.3; the first
sentence appears to have been fragmented. It reads thus: Similarly,
a message that is not compliant with RFC5322, RFC2045 correct or
interpret such content.
Please post the
In the new section 8.14, I believe there is many statements that are
hardly true, but subjective and written by someone begging to pass the
buck with conflictive arguments.
DKIM is part of the SYSTEM, DKIM is NOT the SYSTEM. Lets play fair
with all parties.
1) Contradiction
Many email
bill.ox...@cox.com wrote:
50% of the spam we see is RFC compliant DKIM signed, DKIM isnt the issue in
your example its the operator and how they determine reputation
Please read what was said.
No Signature, Double From --- Trapped/rejected by mipassoc.org
DKIM signed Double From
--On 12 October 2010 09:36:42 -0400 Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
No Signature, Double From --- Trapped/rejected by mipassoc.org
Really? You tested this? I assumed the message was accepted because it
contained a From: header belonging to a list member. Not because it was
Hector says...
If DKIM designers knew there were many email implementations with less
than strict enforcement and strictness was an requirement, then DKIM
started with a problem it ignored to address. Either it was ignorant
or poor engineering.
That's not true at all. It's common and
Ian Eiloart wrote:
Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
DKIM signed Double From Accepted, Resigned by mipassoc.org
Yes, we saw that.
No Signature, Double From --- Trapped/rejected by mipassoc.org
Really? You tested this? I assumed the message was accepted because it
The next post with the example DKIM bypass exemplifies the point that
it is about DKIM fitting into the system, not the other way around.
The current text tries to too hard to pass the buck on other systems
when in fact, hate to say it, its about DKIM faults not anyone else.
This is especially
On 10/11/10 11:46 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Jim Fentonfen...@cisco.com wrote:
There's a Working Group Last Call in effect for -01. Should we:
- Continue to direct comments at -01
- Comment on -02 instead
- or will the WGLC be restarted on the -02 draft?
I
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 8:48 AM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: 4871bis-02 - Section 8.14 comments
Hector says...
If DKIM
I don't think this is really something this WG needs to deal with, though I
could be wrong. It's forwarded here just for informational purposes.
From: marf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:marf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray
S. Kucherawy
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 12:11 PM
To:
Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 10/12/2010 11:21 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-1; I like the wording that's there.
Concur; -1 on the change. I furthermore submit that we are compelled to
describe the known attack, as that's precisely what we are supposed to
include in
On 10/12/10 12:01 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/12/2010 11:21 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
... I furthermore submit that we are
compelled to describe the known attack, as that's precisely what
we are supposed to include in Security Considerations.
We should keep in mind that DKIM's
Sounds like you agree with me. :)
Its incomplete security analysis and if you going to touch base with
it regarding one attack method you need to take about the others, like
I shown here:
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2010q4/014802.html
This shows its not only a matter of bad
On 10/12/2010 11:05 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
No Signature, Double From --- Trapped/rejected by mipassoc.org
Really? You tested this? I assumed the message was accepted because it
contained a From: header belonging to a list member. Not because it was
signed.
You are correct. The list
On 10/12/10 7:58 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Jim Fenton
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 5:29 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: 4871bis-02 -
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Jim Fenton
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 9:48 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: 4871bis-02 - Section 8.14 comments
I had trouble
On 10/13/2010 1:02 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
The mixed use of words is a fair complaint. I think we can safely just
switch one of those to the other one to make it consistent.
gad. you guys have no literary sensibility at all. sigh.
a shame this is a spec, which makes you guys
I'll go through my comments on rfc4871bis in this message, but will
split a couple of the larger comments out into separate messages.
Section 2.3, Identity: I realize this is taken from RFC 5672, but the
definition is not clear to me. Suggest that the second sentence read,
Identities that
This is a comment on the new section 3.6.1.1, Compatibility Note for
DomainKeys, that suggests a different interpretation of the g= tag in
the key record if the v= value is not present at the beginning of the
record. The section says:
If a v= value is not found at the beginning of the
20 matches
Mail list logo
