On 1/25/25 4:01 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
In message , Michael
Thomas writes
> Can somebody explain to me why the "back scatter" problem is related to
> DKIM of any version?
because our DKIM2 proposal fixes it
if only all your questions were so straightforward to answer
I'm asking about t
On 1/25/25 4:00 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
In message <78e99534-7b33-4e26-91c6-206035a91...@mtcc.com>, Michael
Thomas writes
> I'm sorry can you give some examples of the "exotic changes to existing
> fields"? I'm drawing a blank on why you'd need to change existing
fields
> at all vs introd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message , Michael
Thomas writes
>Can somebody explain to me why the "back scatter" problem is related to
>DKIM of any version?
because our DKIM2 proposal fixes it
if only all your questions were so straightforward to answer
- --
richard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message <78e99534-7b33-4e26-91c6-206035a91...@mtcc.com>, Michael
Thomas writes
>I'm sorry can you give some examples of the "exotic changes to existing
>fields"? I'm drawing a blank on why you'd need to change existing fields
>at all vs introduc
Michael Thomas wrote in
:
|Can somebody explain to me why the "back scatter" problem is related to
|DKIM of any version?
No.
Except that the recommendation to first try the signature related
to the first address in From: is a bit misleading if there is not
a single signature to match against t
Can somebody explain to me why the "back scatter" problem is related to
DKIM of any version?
Mike
___
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
On 1/25/25 10:10 AM, Richard Clayton wrote:
> The working group will pursue incremental enhancements to DKIM
> and/or DKIM use, where possible. It will pursue parallel or
> replacement mechanisms only where incremental change is not feasible.
this is recipe for spending a considerable am
On 1/25/25 10:10 AM, Richard Clayton wrote:
> There are additional needs. They are new. Or, at least, they were not
> previously a priority. Since they were not needs when DKIM was
developed, they
> are not 'shortcomings'.
they may not have been perceived to be shortcomings then -- they ar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message <09ee9385-c706-42b8-945f-360148d3b...@dcrocker.net>, Dave
Crocker writes
>A basic problem, throughout this entire discussion, has been the effort to
>treat
>simple relaying through MTAs, and a multiple-posting/delivering forwarding
>seq
On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 7:38 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
> but I honestly think we’re working at the margins
>
>
> Since the IETF does not support the use of simple voting and since I'm
> sure that everyone making this latest round of statements supporting the
> latest draft is sufficiently aware
but I honestly think we’re working at the margins
Since the IETF does not support the use of simple voting and since I'm
sure that everyone making this latest round of statements supporting the
latest draft is sufficiently aware of mailing list postings -- that is,
their statements are based
11 matches
Mail list logo
