...@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: 3.6.2.1 - Working with other TXT records
By the way, has everyone tested their signing code to see what happens
if there's no From: header at all? Do we even agree what the right
thing is? I'd think it'd be approximately the same as if the private
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:52 AM
To: DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: 3.6.2.1 - Working with other TXT
records
By the way, has everyone
SM wrote:
Hi Hector,
At 09:28 16-10-10, Hector Santos wrote:
From an IETF procedural angle. :)
I'll comment on how I read what the WG Chairs said in general terms. If
you believe that the process followed is not fair, you could discuss the
matter with the WG Chairs. I'll quote a
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of John Levine
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 7:14 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: 3.6.2.1 - Working with other TXT records
Hi Hector,
At 09:28 16-10-10, Hector Santos wrote:
From an IETF procedural angle. :)
I'll comment on how I read what the WG Chairs said in general
terms. If you believe that the process followed is not fair, you
could discuss the matter with the WG Chairs. I'll quote a message
from a WG
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 DKIM specs
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I appreciate the desire to put more information in there to help, but
we really can't be writing a tutorial on managing DNS records.
+1. However, I'd be fine with adding some informative
support
On Oct 15, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I appreciate the desire to put more information in there to help, but
we really can't be writing a tutorial on managing DNS records.
On Oct 15, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I appreciate the desire to put more information in there to help, but
we really can't be writing a tutorial on managing DNS records.
+1.
On Friday, October 15, 2010 01:58:07 pm Barry Leiba wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I appreciate the desire to put more information in there to help, but
we really can't be writing a tutorial on managing DNS records.
On 10/15/2010 2:46 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
I'm not sure whether wildcard records is relevant to the spec - that's
more of a development, deployment and operations issue, I think.
The degree to which a processing environment is expected to be pure versus
potentially noisy might well come
At 08:25 14-10-10, Hector Santos wrote:
I don't think I am suggesting to get into the bad DNS managements
tools. But the section is short on what are possible error issues.
One of them is making sure other TXT records don't conflict. I think
that can be a general, generic statement that does not
On 10/14/2010 12:22 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Seems OK to me. But doesn't EMAIL-ARCH talk about domain names and ADMDs and
all that? Perhaps it's a better reference for this?
As much as I like to tout email-arch, the citation here needs to be
specifically
about the DNS and, for
The DKIM public key TXT record MUST not be mixed or merged
with other TXT records, i.e. SPF. In addition, make sure other
TXT records with Wildcards do not conflict with DKIM public
key lookups.
That text adds a requirement in an informative note.
THat is the least
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I appreciate the desire to put more information in there to help, but
we really can't be writing a tutorial on managing
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Jeff Macdonald
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 12:54 PM
To: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: 3.6.2.1 - Working with other TXT
records
Does ADSP need
SM wrote:
This is just to jump start suggested text. Others can add/change
whether they think helps:
The DKIM public key TXT record MUST not be mixed or merged
with other TXT records, i.e. SPF. In addition, make sure other
TXT records with Wildcards do not conflict with DKIM
On 10/15/10 10:58 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net
wrote:
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I appreciate the desire to put more information in there to
help, but we really can't be writing a tutorial on managing DNS
records.
+1.
In this case, we've gone to some lengths to make the environment
pure, by using the underscore branch. And then along come these
pesky wildcards.
Even without wildcards, there's been a variety of broken key records.
I would hope it would be obvious that you have to assume that any data
you
On Oct 15, 2010, at 7:13 PM, John Levine wrote:
In this case, we've gone to some lengths to make the environment
pure, by using the underscore branch. And then along come these
pesky wildcards.
Even without wildcards, there's been a variety of broken key records.
I would hope it would
John Levine wrote:
By the way, has everyone tested their signing code to see what happens
if there's no From: header at all? Do we even agree what the right
thing is? I'd think it'd be approximately the same as if the private
signing key (the only other mandatory input I can think of at the
Steve Atkins wrote:
I'd think it'd be approximately the same as if the private
signing key (the only other mandatory input I can think of at the
moment) wasn't present.
If it fails, it's broken, I think. There's nothing special about the
From field, other than it having to be one of the
On Oct 15, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
I'd think it'd be approximately the same as if the private
signing key (the only other mandatory input I can think of at the
moment) wasn't present.
If it fails, it's broken, I think. There's nothing special about the
On 10/14/2010 12:45 AM, SM wrote:
RFC 4871 discusses about DNS in various sections. Unfortunately,
there is no reference to the DNS specifications.
OMG. As in, wow.
I propose changing from:
section
title=Introduction
tDomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) permits a
to:
section
title=Introduction
tDomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) permits a person, role, or
organization to claim some responsibility for a message by
associating a domain name xref
target=RFC1034 / with the message.
On 10/14/2010 9:49 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
Well, just to create a bit more of a rat-hole, is there any chance
you'd like to add a definitional link for the word message as well?
The easy and possibly sufficient answer is: RFC 5322.
If more precision is required, then Section 3.5 of RFC
SM wrote:
That text adds a requirement in an informative note.
My proposal to add more informative notes to help minimize this for
the systems with the lack of DNS admin expertise on board. In
particular for those with currently one existing need for a TXT record
and that is SPF and
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 5:23 AM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: 3.6.2.1 - Working with other TXT records
On 10/14/2010 12
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:45 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 17:31 13-10-10, Hector Santos wrote:
My proposal to add more informative notes to help minimize this for
the systems with the lack of DNS admin expertise on board. In
particular for those with currently one existing need for a TXT
Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:45 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 17:31 13-10-10, Hector Santos wrote:
My proposal to add more informative notes to help minimize this for
the systems with the lack of DNS admin expertise on board. In
particular for those
Barry Leiba wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:45 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 17:31 13-10-10, Hector Santos wrote:
My proposal to add more informative notes to help minimize this for
the systems with the lack of DNS admin expertise on board. In
particular for those with currently one
Scott Kitterman wrote:
+1.
Just as a note of clarification, SPF doesn't prefix TXT records, but I don't
think that affects the analysis.
The Network Solutions DNS Records manager does not allow you to add a
TXT record without a sub-domain, so to add one, you have to add *
which when
Barry Leiba wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:45 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 17:31 13-10-10, Hector Santos wrote:
My proposal to add more informative notes to help minimize this for
the systems with the lack of DNS admin expertise on board. In
particular for those with currently one
Folks,
I know section 3.6.2.1 has this informative note:
INFORMATIVE OPERATIONAL NOTE: Wildcard DNS records (e.g.,
*.bar._domainkey.example.com) do not make sense in this context
and should not be used. Note also that wildcards within domains
(e.g.,
At 17:31 13-10-10, Hector Santos wrote:
I know section 3.6.2.1 has this informative note:
[snip]
This is just to jump start suggested text. Others can add/change
whether they think helps:
The DKIM public key TXT record MUST not be mixed or merged
with other TXT records, i.e. SPF.
35 matches
Mail list logo
