Jim,
To be clear, you'd like to remove the headers (5.3) and filename (5.1)
sections, and have all the filtering based solely on the subject that is
specified in 5.3? And relating to "draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf", could you
clarify that a bit? Are you asking me to request an alteration of the a
Hi,
(As a participant)
On 09/08/2017 14:07, Brotman, Alexander wrote:
Jim,
To be clear, you'd like to remove the headers (5.3) and filename (5.1)
sections, and have all the filtering based solely on the subject that is
specified in 5.3?
I don't think Jim made a convincing argument for remov
A few more comments on filenames:
On 09/08/2017 14:33, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Regarding filenames - I am ambivalent. If you need this information
somewhere, you will need to define new header fields as well.
In IMAP filename Content-Disposition parameter is returned as a part of
BODYSTRUCTUR
Hi Jim,
On 03/08/2017 06:01, Jim Fenton wrote:
On 08/01/2017 10:17 PM, Leif Johansson wrote:
On 2017-08-01 22:08, Jim Fenton wrote:
I don't think I was suggesting anything involving Subject. There's
already some of this in Section 5.3, and I'm not crazy about doing that
either, especially sin
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>
> > On Aug 8, 2017, at 6:24 PM, Daniel Margolis
> wrote:
> >
> > mode=none still requires period refresh via HTTPS. So it fails the
> > requirement to be able to erase all trace of STS.
> >
> > How do you mean? You have to continue to se
On 8/9/17 6:33 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (As a participant)
>
>
> On 09/08/2017 14:07, Brotman, Alexander wrote:
>> Jim,
>>
>> To be clear, you'd like to remove the headers (5.3) and filename
>> (5.1) sections, and have all the filtering based solely on the
>> subject that is specified i
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 08:52:48AM -0700, Daniel Margolis wrote:
> The time period during which a domain who opts out of STS must publish the
> "opt out" signal--regardless of how it is expressed--is the same in all
> possible implementations of any opt-out signal.
Yes, but "report" is NOT an opt
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 08:52:48AM -0700, Daniel Margolis wrote:
>
> > The time period during which a domain who opts out of STS must publish
> the
> > "opt out" signal--regardless of how it is expressed--is the same in all
> > possible im
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 11:14:16AM -0700, Daniel Margolis wrote:
> > No, with "none" the policy refresh can stop (and cache flushed) as
> > soon as NXDOMAIN/NODATA is seen for the TXT lookup. The same is
> > not true for "report", to avoid downgrade attacks.
> >
>
> That's not true; once a polic
> On Aug 9, 2017, at 8:05 PM, Daniel Margolis wrote:
>
> 1. Publish a new policy (as with any new policy, updating the TXT record's
> ID) with mode=none.
> 2. After all pre-existing policies have expired (e.g. the time of step 1 plus
> the existing policy's max_age), safely remove the TXT rec
10 matches
Mail list logo
