Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20250130205056.3vIwoke8@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|John Levine wrote in
| <20250130180421.7c392ba8f...@ary.qy>:
||It appears that Jim Fenton said:
...
||>otherwise you don’t know that the mutation doesn’t contain harmful/u\
||>nwanted
||>content (barring some magic A
On 30/01/2025 21:19, Michael Thomas wrote:
I’m a little unclear on the need to fully describe the “mutation” that might be
applied by an intermediary. Even if fully described, you need to have some
trust of the intermediary to accept the mutation, because otherwise you don’t
know that the muta
On 1/30/25 5:00 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 1:34 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
But I'm content to leave that discussion to the WG rather than
the charter.
I do think it's a valid discussion point to understand why this
has bubbled up to the top. I know
John Levine wrote in
<20250130180421.7c392ba8f...@ary.qy>:
|It appears that Jim Fenton said:
|>I’m a little unclear on the need to fully describe the “mutation” \
|>that might be applied by an intermediary. Even if fully described, \
|>you need to
|>have some trust of the intermediary to ac
On 1/30/25 1:39 PM, Jeremy Harris wrote:
On 30/01/2025 21:19, Michael Thomas wrote:
I’m a little unclear on the need to fully describe the “mutation” that might be applied by an intermediary. Even if fully described, you need to have some trust of the intermediary to accept the mutation, because
Jeremy Harris wrote in
:
|On 30/01/2025 21:19, Michael Thomas wrote:
|>> I’m a little unclear on the need to fully describe the “mutation\
|>> ” that might be applied by an intermediary. Even if fully descri\
|>> bed, you need to have some trust of the intermediary to accept t\
|>> he mutatio
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 1:34 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> But I'm content to leave that discussion to the WG rather than the charter.
>
> I do think it's a valid discussion point to understand why this has
> bubbled up to the top. I know there's been talk about this off and on for
> quite a while
It appears that Jim Fenton said:
>I’m a little unclear on the need to fully describe the “mutation” that might
>be applied by an intermediary. Even if fully described, you need to
>have some trust of the intermediary to accept the mutation, because otherwise
>you don’t know that the mutation do
On 1/29/2025 9:05 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
As I understand it, ARC on the other hand doesn't care what the
mutation is, but just proves a chain of handling; if hop N+1 observes
that N liked the message and N+1 trusts N, then N+1 can also like the
message even if it was modified in transit
On 1/29/25 9:05 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 8:45 PM Jim Fenton wrote:
I’m a little unclear on the need to fully describe the “mutation”
that might be applied by an intermediary. Even if fully described,
you need to have some trust of the intermediary to a
On 1/29/25 8:45 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jan 2025, at 19:30, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 1/29/25 6:20 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
My own motivation is the former, not the latter. That is, yes I would like to recover
the author domain signature if we can come up with a relatively robust
It appears that Michael Thomas said:
>There seems to be a misconception that a mailing list can't resign a
>message. Or at least it seems there is. ARC seems to go through a lot of
>hoops to associate an arbitrary number of signatures with an arbitrary
>number of A-R headers, but how common is
12 matches
Mail list logo
