On Wed, Mar 19, 2025, at 10:08, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 1:30 AM Michael Thomas wrote:
>> __
>> On 3/5/25 9:14 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 1:08 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
I've been reading the draft mentioned in the charter re: repl
On 3/18/25 9:03 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:49 AM Jim Fenton
wrote:
I agree that the single-address-per-envelope model doesn’t have
that problem. But I wonder if it might make it a little easier for
implementations to operate only on the message heade
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:49 AM Jim Fenton wrote:
> I agree that the single-address-per-envelope model doesn’t have that
> problem. But I wonder if it might make it a little easier for
> implementations to operate only on the message header and not the envelope
> itself, so perhaps having the re
On 19 Mar 2025, at 10:34, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:29 AM Jim Fenton wrote:
>
>> If I understand what you are describing properly, the verifying MTA can
>> verify the signature, but an individual recipient wouldn’t have the
>> envelope information to do that with — t
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:29 AM Jim Fenton wrote:
> If I understand what you are describing properly, the verifying MTA can
> verify the signature, but an individual recipient wouldn’t have the
> envelope information to do that with — they would rely on the
> Authentication-Results header field
On 19 Mar 2025, at 10:19, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:14 AM Jim Fenton wrote:
>
>> I’d still be concerned about the confidentiality of the bcc recipient
>> addresses. If a recipient wanted to ask, “Did Bob get bcc’ed on this?” they
>> could potentially find out by tryi
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:14 AM Jim Fenton wrote:
> I’d still be concerned about the confidentiality of the bcc recipient
> addresses. If a recipient wanted to ask, “Did Bob get bcc’ed on this?” they
> could potentially find out by trying to add Bob’s email address and seeing
> if the hash match
On 19 Mar 2025, at 10:08, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> One of my long-ago drafts on this topic included the envelope as part of
> what gets fed to the hash, and thus signed, but never adds it to the
> signature or any other header field. That binds the signature to the
> envelope recipient withou
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 1:30 AM Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 3/5/25 9:14 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 1:08 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>> I've been reading the draft mentioned in the charter re: replay and
>> rcpt-to and don't understand why that changes anything wrt re
On 19 Mar 2025, at 1:30, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 3/5/25 9:14 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 1:08 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>> I've been reading the draft mentioned in the charter re: replay and
>> rcpt-to and don't understand why that changes anything wrt re
On 3/5/25 9:14 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 1:08 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
I've been reading the draft mentioned in the charter re: replay and
rcpt-to and don't understand why that changes anything wrt replay. If
there is a message that a spammer has discove
On 6 Mar 2025, at 14:35, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
...a german one that is known to be no good to customers...
OK, this is going to stop right now.
In the IETF, we do not make comments on anyone's personal traits,
company reputations, or other ad hominem comments in our discussions.
Steffen,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message <1ab921c3-9ebd-4e81-8d19-c3772b02d...@dcrocker.net>, Dave
Crocker writes
>On 3/6/2025 5:07 AM, Richard Clayton wrote:
>> Yesterday (Wednesday) at $DAYJOB the percentage of mail delivered to a
>> single recipient (rather than 2 or more) was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message , Murray S. Kucherawy
writes
>The argument has been made that the bulk of Internet mail these
>days is single recipient anyway, so the load increase this would
>cause is negligible.
>
>Someone who has data to back up that
Michael Thomas wrote in
:
|On 3/6/25 3:34 AM, Richard Clayton wrote:
|> In message <799da3ac-0b80-4aa4-857d-25d1b1027...@mtcc.com>, Michael
|> Thomas writes
|>
|>> 3) Any intermediary along the mail path is completely at liberty to
|>> (re)sign a message already with DKIM.
|>
|> Yes and m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message <799da3ac-0b80-4aa4-857d-25d1b1027...@mtcc.com>, Michael
Thomas writes
>6) As for Bcc, if the rcpt-to is somehow in the email message itself,
>you've broken the promise that the message not contain the Bcc'd address.
There is no such pro
On 3/6/25 3:34 AM, Richard Clayton wrote:
In message <799da3ac-0b80-4aa4-857d-25d1b1027...@mtcc.com>, Michael
Thomas writes
> 3) Any intermediary along the mail path is completely at liberty to
> (re)sign a message already with DKIM.
Yes and many do ... as a result of which a high proportion
Pete Resnick wrote in
<88b6616e-7661-4966-9326-c8c71cbad...@episteme.net>:
|On 6 Mar 2025, at 14:35, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|
|> ...a german one that is known to be no good to customers...
|
|OK, this is going to stop right now.
|
|In the IETF, we do not make comments on anyone's personal
Ha!
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20250306203525.oaFQ9udg@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Murray S. Kucherawy wrote in
| :
...
||> One thing is plain: until ACDC or DKIM2 have penetrated the
||> infrastructure, the current mess of DMARC and ARC will have to be
||> dealt with! This IETF has forced all t
Hello.
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote in
:
|On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 3:54 PM Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|
|> But that DKIM2 draft mutilates SMTP to *only* work in this one
|> recipient mode: even if a mailing-list has hundreds of Gmail
|> subscribers, where ACDC would (could) send one message to all
Richard Clayton wrote in
<0MG+VuB$taynf...@highwayman.com>:
|-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
...
|it was solely for incoming mail (but will include email sent from one
|user of the platform to another)
But, please. One thing.
For one, do you have numbers from say ten years ago?
Google alr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message <799da3ac-0b80-4aa4-857d-25d1b1027...@mtcc.com>, Michael
Thomas writes
>1) A sender or intermediate can already send a new message per rcpt-to.
>This is an operational issue,
yes, your MTA will have a configuration setting for this
>an
On 3/6/2025 5:07 AM, Richard Clayton wrote:
Yesterday (Wednesday) at $DAYJOB the percentage of mail delivered to a
single recipient (rather than 2 or more) was 99.8566% (I feel justified
in providing the precision because the total count was many billions)
For that service, is that percentage
On 3/6/2025 4:03 AM, Laura Atkins wrote:
I can certainly see a space where bulk mail moves to DKIM2 but regular
mailing list mail or non-bulk mail stays at DKIM as it is now. I’m not
sure there’s any downside to that.
This seems a significant point for the working group to keep in mind,
rat
> On 6 Mar 2025, at 06:59, Jim Fenton wrote:
>
> On 5 Mar 2025, at 21:19, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 3:54 PM Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
>>
>>> But that DKIM2 draft mutilates SMTP to *only* work in this one
>>> recipient mode: even if a mailing-list has hundreds of Gm
On 5 Mar 2025, at 21:19, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 3:54 PM Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
>
>> But that DKIM2 draft mutilates SMTP to *only* work in this one
>> recipient mode: even if a mailing-list has hundreds of Gmail
>> subscribers, where ACDC would (could) send one messag
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 3:54 PM Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> But that DKIM2 draft mutilates SMTP to *only* work in this one
> recipient mode: even if a mailing-list has hundreds of Gmail
> subscribers, where ACDC would (could) send one message to all of
> those in a single transaction, DKIM2 sends hu
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 1:08 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
> I've been reading the draft mentioned in the charter re: replay and
> rcpt-to and don't understand why that changes anything wrt replay. If
> there is a message that a spammer has discovered passes a recipient's
> spam filter, what difference
Michael Thomas wrote in
<64aaf30f-c5ca-42a3-8ee6-730d7d98e...@mtcc.com>:
|On 3/5/25 3:12 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> Michael Thomas wrote in
|> <1dbce124-0e1c-4f05-b827-60025684e...@mtcc.com>:
|>|On 3/5/25 12:29 PM, Tobias Herkula wrote:
|> ...
|>|I've been reading the draft mentioned
Michael Thomas wrote in
<799da3ac-0b80-4aa4-857d-25d1b1027...@mtcc.com>:
|A few points:
|
|1) A sender or intermediate can already send a new message per rcpt-to.
|This is an operational issue, and has nothing to do with DKIM. Indeed,
|lots of transactional mail already does this so you uns
On 3/5/25 3:12 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote in
<1dbce124-0e1c-4f05-b827-60025684e...@mtcc.com>:
|On 3/5/25 12:29 PM, Tobias Herkula wrote:
...
|I've been reading the draft mentioned in the charter re: replay and
|rcpt-to and don't understand why that changes anythin
Tobias Herkula wrote in
:
|I think the current idea is to have dedicated unique signatures for \
That is not my idea.
|every mail-from/rcpt-to combination and that's the reason for going \
|down to a single RCPT-TO. A spammer therefore cannot reuse a message \
Now you turned a cycle and just
Michael Thomas wrote in
<1dbce124-0e1c-4f05-b827-60025684e...@mtcc.com>:
|On 3/5/25 12:29 PM, Tobias Herkula wrote:
...
|I've been reading the draft mentioned in the charter re: replay and
|rcpt-to and don't understand why that changes anything wrt replay. If
|there is a message that a spam
la
Senior Product Owner Mail Security
Product Management Mail Transfer & Mail Security
1&1 Mail & Media GmbH
________________
From: Michael Thomas
Sent: 05 March 2025 22:07
To: ietf-dkim@ietf.org
Subject: [Ietf-dkim] Re: New drafts published
On 3/5/25 12:29 PM, Tobias H
Tobias Herkula wrote in
:
|I'm part of that SMTP audience and I'm looking forward to reducing \
|the number of RCPT-TOs in a transaction to one. I also think of the \
Reasons. Give me just one reason! I have mailing-lists myself,
and lots of gmail addresses. All of these are bundled. (In
se
Richard Clayton wrote in
:
|-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
|Hash: SHA1
|
|In message <20250305184412.8asro9Ar@steffen%sdaoden.eu>, Steffen
|Nurpmeso writes
|
|>And not to talk about the possible privacy issues if such a DKIM2
|>header escapes into the wild, shall
|>
|>| rt=|
agement Mail Transfer & Mail Security
1&1 Mail & Media GmbH
From: Michael Thomas
Sent: 05 March 2025 22:07
To: ietf-dkim@ietf.org
Subject: [Ietf-dkim] Re: New drafts published
On 3/5/25 12:29 PM, Tobias Herkula wrote:
> I'm part of tha
On 3/5/25 12:29 PM, Tobias Herkula wrote:
I'm part of that SMTP audience and I'm looking forward to reducing the number
of RCPT-TOs in a transaction to one. I also think of the joy of having a
cryptographic signature that covers MAIL-FROM and RCPT-TO in addition to the
already covered headers
ch 2025 19:44
To: ietf-dkim@ietf.org
Subject: [Ietf-dkim] Re: New drafts published
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20250304225608.jcbQ5EUD@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
| <20250304221133.VfKY5pqy@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
||Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
|| <20250304205330.GtAvv
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message <20250305184412.8asro9Ar@steffen%sdaoden.eu>, Steffen
Nurpmeso writes
>And not to talk about the possible privacy issues if such a DKIM2
>header escapes into the wild, shall
>
> | rt=| RFC5321.rcpt-to
>but also
> | mf=
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20250304225608.jcbQ5EUD@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
| <20250304221133.VfKY5pqy@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
||Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
|| <20250304205330.GtAvvE5w@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
...
|It is more than that.
|I find it sheer unbelievable that such
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20250304221133.VfKY5pqy@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
| <20250304205330.GtAvvE5w@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
...
|Yeah, i mean, how can you actually dare (!) to follow that Chuang
|Google way of doing things by saying "i have the desire to
|mutilate SMTP
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20250304205330.GtAvvE5w@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Bron Gondwana wrote in
| <667a3a6e-cf9c-4424-b3a0-f36d340fe...@app.fastmail.com>:
||Hi all,
|
|This does not include me. (Never did, from the start, btw.)
|
|I do not want something big and entirely new, but, to the a
Bron Gondwana wrote in
<667a3a6e-cf9c-4424-b3a0-f36d340fe...@app.fastmail.com>:
|Hi all,
This does not include me. (Never did, from the start, btw.)
I do not want something big and entirely new, but, to the absolute
opposite, i want the existing DKIM software and infrastructure to
slightly imp
44 matches
Mail list logo
