On 10/16/10 7:16 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 10/16/2010 2:39 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
> > My problem is that if some valuable domain like paypal sends me a
> > bunch of bits that I or my MUA or my MTA ties to paypal.com then
> > the end goal of DKIM is, IMO, that those bunch of bits I "see" are
>
"Which header fields are essential to protect?
How much of the message body is essential to protect?"
Your questions are noted. Other than the MUST to sign the From: header,
the DKIM spec offers the technical latitide to create a totally worthless
signature. I don't know anyone who
Far be it for me to defend Dave, but I think you two are in
violent agreement. I think you misread some of Dave's comment
because they were posed as rhetorical.
Mike
On 10/16/2010 11:56 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Saturday, October 16, 2010 10:50:25 am Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> On 10/16/2010 10:
On Saturday, October 16, 2010 10:50:25 am Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 10/16/2010 10:26 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
> >> Yes, it ties an identifier to a bag of bits, and yes it specifies what
> >> those bits are, but it really does deal only with those bits and not
> >> (necessarily) the entire message.
On 10/16/2010 1:07 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> This is disingenuous on your part. It is akin to saying that although
> the common usage of hammers is to hit nails, we must accept within the
> definition of normal the usage of beating people on the head with a
> hammer simply because
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 5:10 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] detecting header mutations after signing
>
> MH Michael Hamme
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 10:50 AM
> To: John R. Levine
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] sophistry is bad, was Data integrity claims
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Mark Delany
> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 2:39 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:10:48AM
SM wrote:
>> You can tell me if I am wrong here cause I am trying to make sure I
>
> It is not up to me to determine whether you are wrong. :-)
From an IETF procedural angle. :)
>> 1) Verifier TXT record parsing
>>
>> I checked for this, but did not find it, but was a quick scan.
>>
>> If the
On 10/16/10 4:50 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> On 10/16/2010 10:26 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>> Yes, it ties an identifier to a bag of bits, and yes it specifies what
>>> those bits are, but it really does deal only with those bits and not
>>> (necessarily) the entire message.
>> Technically. you
On 15/Oct/10 20:36, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> Title : DKIM And Mailing Lists
>> Author(s) : M. Kucherawy
>> Filename: draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-04.txt
>> Pages : 29
>> Date: 2010-10-15
>> [...]
>
> This version takes int
On 10/16/2010 10:26 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> Yes, it ties an identifier to a bag of bits, and yes it specifies what
>> those bits are, but it really does deal only with those bits and not
>> (necessarily) the entire message.
>
> Technically. you are correct. Semantically, that's silly.
>
> W
> Yes, it ties an identifier to a bag of bits, and yes it specifies what
> those bits are, but it really does deal only with those bits and not
> (necessarily) the entire message.
Technically. you are correct. Semantically, that's silly.
We went through backflips trying to figure out how to de
On 10/16/2010 2:39 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
> My problem is that if some valuable domain like paypal sends me a
> bunch of bits that I or my MUA or my MTA ties to paypal.com then the
> end goal of DKIM is, IMO, that those bunch of bits I "see" are the
> ones that paypal sent. No more, no less.
>
>
>US PATENT 7487217
>http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7487217.html
>
>but then it seems prior art existed in the form of DKIM (which was
>started around 2004 http://news.domainmonster.com/dkim-email/)
This isn't a patent about authentication, it's about spam filtering
using the reputation of domain
15 matches
Mail list logo
