On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:18:16 +0100, Murray S. Kucherawy
m...@cloudmark.com wrote:
This is no more presumptuous than expecting that MUAs will adapt to
consume the output of DKIM as it stands now.
In another message I indicated that I don't presume either, but assert
that there's no middle
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Mark Delany
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 6:23 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
By DKIM process, I would include anything
-Original Message-
From: MH Michael Hammer (5304) [mailto:mham...@ag.com]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 11:44 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
There's nothing between an MTA and an MUA that prevents this attack
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 2:51 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
-Original Message-
From
-Original Message-
From: MH Michael Hammer (5304) [mailto:mham...@ag.com]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 12:11 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
See above. This leads me to believe that you might be amenable
-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 3:18 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
-Original Message-
From: MH Michael Hammer (5304) [mailto:mham...@ag.com]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 12
MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
This is no more presumptuous than expecting that MUAs will adapt to
consume the output of DKIM as it stands now. The question is the value
equation. I'm not in a position to answer that question. Perhaps we
should try to get some of the MUA folks to join the
FWIW, the telnet mail interface typo fix should be:
telnet bbs.winserver.com
--
HLS
Hector Santos wrote:
I'm a MUA author of BOTH types and people forget that there are TWO
kinds here. We have:
Console based Mail Reader/Writers Online Interface (Dialup/Telnet)
On 10/18/10 12:18 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
This is no more presumptuous than expecting that MUAs will adapt
to consume the output of DKIM as it stands now.
In another message I indicated that I don't presume either, but
assert that there's no middle ground; they will or they
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Douglas Otis
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 3:33 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
Should the charter of a security related
On 10/18/10 4:15 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Monday, October 18, 2010 3:33 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
Should the charter of a security related protocol need to
anticipate minor modifications to a verification process, that
appears essential for ensuring a DKIM signature is not
On 10/15/10 4:50 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Friday, October 15, 2010 2:30 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
Citing a layer violation makes little sense. With DKIM, the message
body does not stand on its own. DKIM binds elements related to the
RFC5322 header fields with the message body, for
-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 -0400
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 Douglas Otis
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 2:30 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] detecting header mutations after signing
Citing a layer violation
On Friday, October 15, 2010 07:50:36 pm Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Otis Sent:
Friday, October 15, 2010 2:30 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 5:09 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims
I thought the What DKIM does thing
I thought the What DKIM does thing was a long-dead horse, as we'd
long ago reached consensus that what DKIM does is provide a stable
identifier on the message, and nothing more. That makes this
assertion inapposite.
I think perhaps now would be a good time to make that explicit,
since a
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
There might be a better way to characterize it, but I think the answer comes
from the errata RFC upon which we reached consensus a while back: The primary
payload delivered by a DKIM validation is the validated domain name.
Reputation, for example, would be
19 matches
Mail list logo
