> In message <6585e535.11582.3a72...@postmaster.inter-corporate.com>,
> Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop writes
>
> >> The most commonly seen method of tracking is probably inclusion of
> >> specifically crafted links in the message, that refer to a tracking server
> >> run by the
In message <6585e535.11582.3a72...@postmaster.inter-corporate.com>,
Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop writes
>> The most commonly seen method of tracking is probably inclusion of
>> specifically crafted links in the message, that refer to a tracking server
>> run by the sender, so the
> Dnia 22.12.2023 o godz. 10:54:54 Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop
> pisze:
> > > Tracking/spying elements in email messsages are usually intended to spy on
> > > the *recipient* - did the recipient read the email at all, did he clicked
> > > on a link in the email etc.
> >
> >
Dnia 22.12.2023 o godz. 10:54:54 Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop
pisze:
> > Tracking/spying elements in email messsages are usually intended to spy on
> > the *recipient* - did the recipient read the email at all, did he clicked
> > on a link in the email etc.
>
> ...mail server
> Dnia 22.12.2023 o godz. 16:22:45 Slavko via mailop pisze:
> > But my point was (mostly) not about courties cases, i mean usual users
> > tracking/spying (contacts, shoppings, opinions, etc), where signature is
> > checked once (at receive time), but used/stored forever. And that cannot
> > be
On Thu 21/Dec/2023 22:26:34 +0100 Gellner, Oliver wrote:
If Google would have published their DKIM private key after it was rotated in
2016, checking the DKIM signature in 2020 would have proven nothing.
Yet, if the message was ARC-sealed on forwarding and the forwarder didn't
rotate and
Dnia 22.12.2023 o godz. 16:22:45 Slavko via mailop pisze:
> But my point was (mostly) not about courties cases, i mean usual users
> tracking/spying (contacts, shoppings, opinions, etc), where signature is
> checked once (at receive time), but used/stored forever. And that cannot
> be solved by
Dňa 21. decembra 2023 21:26:34 UTC používateľ "Gellner, Oliver via mailop"
napísal:
>If Google would have published their DKIM private key after it was rotated in
>2016, checking the DKIM signature in 2020 would have proven nothing.
Yes, checking that signature in 2020 is pointless. But if
On Thu, 21 Dec 2023, Stuart Henderson wrote:
If you've had to talk someone not very technical through adding a DKIM
RSA key to a poorly implemented web interface from some cheap DNS
provider that doesn't handle long TXT records, you might feel
differently.
I take your point but I can only have
> On 21 Dec 2023, at 17:13, John R Levine via mailop wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2023, Mike Hillyer wrote:
>> John Said:
>>
>>> I'm sure that Google has code somewhere that can validate ED25519
>>> signatures. But that does not mean that it would be a good idea for them
>>> to use that code in
10 matches
Mail list logo
