[ietf-dkim] Absolving Domain Responsibility

2010-11-02 Thread Hector Santos
John R. Levine wrote: Putting on my native speaker of American dialect hat, I don't see a useful difference between responsibility and some responsibility in this context. In practice they mean the same thing, and neither means total responsibility. Agreed. If someone goes to the effort

Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for new text about multiple header issues

2010-11-02 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On 01/Nov/10 22:56, Douglas Otis wrote: On 10/30/10 3:05 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: On 28/Oct/10 03:36, Douglas Otis wrote: I'll repeat the example given previously. The multiple listing of a header in the h= parameter can not mitigate exploitation of DKIM PASS results where a valuable

Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for new text about multiple header issues (why multiple h= singleton listing is an ineffective hack.)

2010-11-02 Thread Douglas Otis
On 11/2/10 11:47 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: On 01/Nov/10 22:56, Douglas Otis wrote: If big-bank.com asserts a restrictive policy, the relevant author address should make that message fail ADSP verification, since no author domain signature can be found. Apparently, RFC 5617 already