John R. Levine wrote:
>>> It tells me signing and encryption certificates are valid and even their
>>> root certificates are valid...
>>
>> Well, something's wrong with it. I checked the signature in Alpine,
>> Thunderbird, and Evolution, and they all agree it's fine.
>
> I went back and looked i
It tells me signing and encryption certificates are valid and even their
root certificates are valid...
Well, something's wrong with it. I checked the signature in Alpine,
Thunderbird, and Evolution, and they all agree it's fine.
I went back and looked in more detail. The problem appears to
Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 02:04:45 PM Hector Santos wrote:
> ...
>> When I remove the domains I know, the rest is pretty much spam.
> ...
>
> Isn't that pretty generally true, DKIM or no DKIM.
Sure, in general I would agree with that and most of it are single
shot dea
On 5/25/2011 9:59 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> The idea is to anticipate any unknown signature breaker.
>
> I'm pretty sure that's specifically out of scope.
>
> And I promise that whatever you do, short of wrapping the whole
> message in opaque armor, I can come up with something that will
> break
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 02:04:45 PM Hector Santos wrote:
...
> When I remove the domains I know, the rest is pretty much spam.
...
Isn't that pretty generally true, DKIM or no DKIM.
Scott K
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mip
Alessandro, with the undotting leading dot fix, I went back and adding
code to adjust for this by undotting it in the C14N code and what a
major difference compared to the failed rate listed before:
Failure rates for level encoding type (OLD)
+--
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of John Levine
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:59 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Cc: ves...@tana.it
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations
>
> >The idea is to
>The idea is to anticipate any unknown signature breaker.
I'm pretty sure that's specifically out of scope.
And I promise that whatever you do, short of wrapping the whole
message in opaque armor, I can come up with something that will
break it.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perp
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>> 3) For text parts, completely remove /any/ whitespace. Additionally,
>>> remove most punctuation, especially from begin and end of lines.
>>
>> Do we really need this? Do you know of cases related to this?
>
> The idea is to anticipate any unknown signature breaker.
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Thomas [mailto:m...@mtcc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 7:03 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] No signatures, bad signatures, cousin domains
>
> Heuristic based systems like SA are subject to the
On 25/May/11 14:27, Hector Santos wrote:
> Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> On 25/May/11 10:03, Hector Santos wrote:
>>> How would 7/8 bit be considered?
>>>
>>> Personally, the STRIP C14N idea would work just fine by removing all
>>> trailing WSP (CR, LF, SP) and for QP text, decode it first. I'm
>>
On 05/25/2011 01:05 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Interesting. I ran some queries on our data for ebay.com, paypal.com,
> chase.com and bankofamerica.com. In all cases, messages with failed
> signatures were never tagged by Spamassassin, and at most 7% (usually less)
> of unsigned mail wher
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On 25/May/11 10:03, Hector Santos wrote:
>> How would 7/8 bit be considered?
>>
>> Personally, the STRIP C14N idea would work just fine by removing all
>> trailing WSP (CR, LF, SP) and for QP text, decode it first. I'm
>> considering updating my 2006 I-D to include th
On 25/May/11 10:03, Hector Santos wrote:
> How would 7/8 bit be considered?
>
> Personally, the STRIP C14N idea would work just fine by removing all
> trailing WSP (CR, LF, SP) and for QP text, decode it first. I'm
> considering updating my 2006 I-D to include the QP decoding logic.
I propose
On 25 May 2011, at 02:13, John R. Levine wrote:
>> Interestingly enough, outlook tells me this message has been tampered
>> with, but not sure why...
>
> Probably doesn't have the Comodo validation certificate.
Maybe, but my Mac does, and it complains. As does a Thunderbird client and an
Outlo
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:12 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 8bit downgrades
>
> > Do you have numbers to show that broken si
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> You could use an extension tag to capture the original
> Content-Transfer-Encoding
> as a hint to the canonical form that was signed, but that means the verifier
> has to undo the conversion before computing the hashes, and it has to do that
> bytewise precisely as
17 matches
Mail list logo