On 1/27/2025 10:28 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 5:51 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
An Internet message (email) may, from creation to final delivery,
pass through multiple intermediaries, some of which simply handle
and route the message, others affecting an inter
That all looks good to me.
laura
> On 28 Jan 2025, at 15:29, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> I've uploaded the discussed changes to the charter, which can be seen
> (including viewing a delta to the last version) in the datatracker here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dkim
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 10:08 AM Michael Thomas wrote:
> One of the earlier drafts of the charter was very, very open ended about
> the scope of work which concerned me. This version seems to be more
> limited, but it's not explicit that the objectives are the actual scope
> of the work. Are they
On 1/28/25 10:19 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 10:08 AM Michael Thomas wrote:
One of the earlier drafts of the charter was very, very open ended
about
the scope of work which concerned me. This version seems to be more
limited, but it's not explicit tha
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote in
:
|On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 9:47 AM Steffen Nurpmeso \
|wrote:
|> Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
|> <20250128174003.fa-zoMBA@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|> ...
|>|[.]they do not use VERP, which is just another
|>|failure of the IETF, as it has never standardized this abso
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 10:38 AM Steffen Nurpmeso
wrote:
> I truly was of the opinion that referencing the backscatter stuff
> is definetely on the table.
> It unfortunately is on the table, is it?
>
Your last message talked about how you think SMTP is crap and the IETF has
failed to deal with V
On 1/28/2025 1:04 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
It's optional. I can add them but I'll also add wording that avoids
compelling the formed WG to adopt those items if it decides not to
start there.
The previous work is dominating the thinking of the principals for this
effort. It really will
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote in
:
|On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 10:38 AM Steffen Nurpmeso
|wrote:
|> I truly was of the opinion that referencing the backscatter stuff
|> is definetely on the table.
|> It unfortunately is on the table, is it?
|>
|
|Your last message talked about how you think SMTP
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 10:53 AM Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> So you're looking for a "No other work is considered to be within this
> charter" statement? If not, I'm not clear what you're asking for and
> request some text you'd like to see added or changed.
>
> I'm asking if that was actually the
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 2:56 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
> That wasn't obvious to me, you might add some text that links the two. And
>> "annotations in transit"... annotations of what? Also "intended"? What
>> might be considered "unintended"?
>>
> The example I gave elsewhere is what I understand:
looks good to me
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025, at 2:29 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> I've uploaded the discussed changes to the charter, which can be seen
> (including viewing a delta to the last version) in the datatracker here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dkim/
>
> I have also
On 1/28/25 2:31 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 10:53 AM Michael Thomas wrote:
So you're looking for a "No other work is considered to be within
this charter" statement? If not, I'm not clear what you're asking
for and request some text you'd like to see ad
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 9:22 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 10:12 AM Richard Clayton
> wrote:
>
>
>> >> * Identify message mutations made by any handling agent; and
>> >
>> >I suspect this means identification of common mutations, rather than all
>> >mutations, since
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 2:05 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 1:42 PM Trent Adams 40proofpoint@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it’s just me... but I think it’d be great if we could focus on
>> the question of the charter before diving into the solution so that we c
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 9:32 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> I've uploaded the discussed changes to the charter, which can be seen
> (including viewing a delta to the last version) in the datatracker here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dkim/
I think this is great.
And this
> On 28 Jan 2025, at 15:29, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> I've uploaded the discussed changes to the charter, which can be seen
> (including viewing a delta to the last version) in the datatracker here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dkim/
>
> I have also tweaked the mile
Richard Clayton wrote in
:
...
|... you might also note that the X people are probably not going to
|spend many cycles to develop and test a DKIMbis since they have already
|concluded it's not going to be capable of solving the problems they
|consider to be important to them -- and those prob
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20250128174003.fa-zoMBA@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
...
|[.]they do not use VERP, which is just another
|failure of the IETF, as it has never standardized this absolutely
Yes. Another failure of the IETF in the email area.
RFC 6783 at least mentions it.
|necessary approa
I've uploaded the discussed changes to the charter, which can be seen
(including viewing a delta to the last version) in the datatracker here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dkim/
I have also tweaked the milestone dates slightly, but not the sequence.
Copying something I said on t
Without delving into technical discussion, this gives us a good framework to
start with.
--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast
From: Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 10:30 AM
To: ietf-dkim@ietf.org
Subject: [Ietf-dkim] Charter v5 available
I've
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 9:47 AM Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
> <20250128174003.fa-zoMBA@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
> ...
> |[.]they do not use VERP, which is just another
> |failure of the IETF, as it has never standardized this absolutely
>
> Yes. Another failure of the IET
On 1/28/25 7:29 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I've uploaded the discussed changes to the charter, which can be seen
(including viewing a delta to the last version) in the datatracker here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dkim/
I have also tweaked the milestone dates slightly, b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message , Murray S. Kucherawy writes
>(2) I hope that the latter paragraph isn't meant to suggest that X
>people looking at this problem for Y time in some outside closed
>forum Z is meant to inoculate the proposed work from alternat
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
>There is still time to make changes during any of that period.
Minor nit: in the Background section, the two sentences in the third
bullet should be separate items. Backscatter is one problem,
shortcut bounces are another, even though I expect we will
Murray -
Looks great to me... just one question... should the charter make any reference
to the preliminary documents that’ve been proposed as potential starting points
for consideration?
I believe they can easily be brought into the conversation later, but was just
wanting to clarify if it’d
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 12:59 PM Trent Adams wrote:
> Looks great to me... just one question... should the charter make any
> reference to the preliminary documents that’ve been proposed as potential
> starting points for consideration?
>
>
>
> I believe they can easily be brought into the conver
Perfect! Thanks (again)
From: Murray S. Kucherawy
Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 at 2:04 PM
To: Trent Adams
Cc: Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ietf-dkim] Charter v5 available
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 12: 59 PM Trent Adams wrote:
Looks great to me. . . just one question. . . should the cha
27 matches
Mail list logo
