[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

It appears that Dave Crocker said: >On 2/4/2025 2:43 PM, Wei Chuang wrote: >> Each originator or forwarder has to own the entire message that leaves >> its system > >Wei, thanks for the comments. > >If your above statement is true, then why is it necessary to do the >reversal? So you can tell

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 4:28 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/4/2025 4:20 PM, John Levine wrote: > > It appears that Dave Crockersaid: > > If your above statement is true, then why is it necessary to do the > reversal? > > So you can tell if the earlier signatures in the chain were real. > > A DK

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On 2/4/2025 4:20 PM, John Levine wrote: It appears that Dave Crocker said: If your above statement is true, then why is it necessary to do the reversal? So you can tell if the earlier signatures in the chain were real. A DKIM signature is self-validating. Why doesn't one handler's taking

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On 2/4/25 5:24 PM, Wei Chuang wrote: On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 4:28 PM Dave Crocker wrote: Hence my use of "Procrustean" since what you've described is an environment that will penalize places doing otherwise legitimate changes but not conforming to the fairly simple changes the

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On 2/4/2025 5:24 PM, Wei Chuang wrote: On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 4:28 PM Dave Crocker wrote: On 2/4/2025 4:20 PM, John Levine wrote: It appears that Dave Crocker said: If your above statement is true, then why is it necessary to do the reversal?

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 2:52 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/4/2025 2:43 PM, Wei Chuang wrote: > > Each originator or forwarder has to own the entire message that leaves > > its system > > Wei, thanks for the comments. > > If your above statement is true, then why is it necessary to do the > reversa

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 3:22 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > Wei -- I have much the same questions as Dave. The current situation is > that if a mailing list resigns a message, it can take ownership of the > message and the receiver can take into account the mailing list's > reputation (if any) in addi

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

Murray beat me to this... I think that the purpose of being able to reconstruct and verify messages before modification is to give us the option to be more nuanced than attributing badness to both the original and modifying entity. This is probably a feature some systems choose to not use, since k

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On 2/4/2025 6:38 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: Analysis of the delta, even if not presented, is still possibly of interest, however. If you has simply said that it was grist for a filtering engine, that can differentially deal with original message vs. delta content, we'd all have been spar

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 6:43 PM Emil Gustafsson wrote: > Murray beat me to this... I think that the purpose of being able to > reconstruct and verify messages before modification is to give us the > option to be more nuanced than attributing badness to both the original and > modifying entity. >

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 12:33 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > Premise: We have a capability for 'preserving' a DKIM signature, by being > able to reverse out changes made by mailing lists, and the like. So a > final receiver's filtering engine can validate the author's originating > DKIM signature. > >

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On 2/4/2025 6:30 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: show the viewing user what parts were added/modified in transit Sorry, but let's stop there. This is the second message in this thread that includes users as relevant to this functionality.  I get that it is always an appealing kind of referen

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 6:35 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/4/2025 6:30 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > show the viewing user what parts were added/modified in transit > > Sorry, but let's stop there. > > This is the second message in this thread that includes users as > relevant to this functio

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On 2/4/25 6:33 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 2:52 PM Dave Crocker wrote: On 2/4/2025 2:43 PM, Wei Chuang wrote: > Each originator or forwarder has to own the entire message that leaves > its system Wei, thanks for the comments. If your above st

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 6:40 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > What's frustrating for me is this experiment is easy to run. I did it 20 > years ago. Bringing data to the table would be extremely helpful as to > whether the goals are worthwhile. They are not the same goals I had, but > such an experiment

[Ietf-dkim] Re: [charter off-topic] final: hash-adaptivity, adaed25519; well: dkimacdc

On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 06:11:47AM +0100, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: > Hello. Hi, > I have finalized > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-nurpmeso-dkim-hash-adaptivity-02.txt There's this note: | INFORMATIVE NOTE: EdDSA was adapted to DKIM as Ed25519-SHA256 in | 2018, but has not

[Ietf-dkim] Re: [charter off-topic] final: hash-adaptivity, adaed25519; well: dkimacdc

Mark E. Mallett wrote in : |On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 06:11:47AM +0100, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: |> I have finalized |> |> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-nurpmeso-dkim-hash-adaptivity-02.\ |> txt | |There's this note: | || INFORMATIVE NOTE: EdDSA was adapted to DKIM as Ed25519-

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 12:33 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > Folks, > > This is meant as a technical thread and it has /nothing/ to do with the > chartering discussion. > > But a stray thought occurred to me and has been bugging me. So I'm > looking for some other folk to consider it and elaborate upon

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On 2/4/2025 2:43 PM, Wei Chuang wrote: Each originator or forwarder has to own the entire message that leaves its system Wei, thanks for the comments. If your above statement is true, then why is it necessary to do the reversal? Might note was meant to explore the potential for addition of

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

Wei Chuang wrote in : |On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 12:33 PM Dave Crocker wrote: ... |> The nature of reversing means taking away changes made along the extended |> path. It means that there are portions of the message -- presumably |> including portions of the body -- that are not covered by the

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On 4 Feb 2025, at 14:52, Dave Crocker wrote: If your above statement is true, then why is it necessary to do the reversal? Might note was meant to explore the potential for addition of abuse, but this question goes to the nature of responsibility for handlers: Why doesn't one handler's ta

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On 2/4/25 2:43 PM, Wei Chuang wrote: So at least two items flow from this: 1. Any site that modifies the substance of a message(*) must add its own signature and facilitate determining what the changes are it made. 2. Any mechanism that does the desired reversals

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

Michael Thomas wrote in <2436f62e-bbad-49d0-9101-6ca5eeaeb...@mtcc.com>: ... |Wei -- I have much the same questions as Dave. The current situation is |that if a mailing list resigns a message, it can take ownership of the |message and the receiver can take into account the mailing list's |

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On 2/4/25 6:43 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 6:40 PM Michael Thomas wrote: What's frustrating for me is this experiment is easy to run. I did it 20 years ago. Bringing data to the table would be extremely helpful as to whether the goals are worthwhile. They

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 6:58 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > FWIW, I'm not arguing against this. I just don't understand the urgency, > and why the urgency is now... urgent. I think we are owed an explanation, > and experimental data would be extremely useful to justify it. > I don't get the impression

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 8:02 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 6:58 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > >> FWIW, I'm not arguing against this. I just don't understand the urgency, >> and why the urgency is now... urgent. I think we are owed an explanation, >> and experimental data wou

[Ietf-dkim] Successful reversal, but what about...

Folks, This is meant as a technical thread and it has /nothing/ to do with the chartering discussion. But a stray thought occurred to me and has been bugging me.  So I'm looking for some other folk to consider it and elaborate upon it.  Finding substantive points that serve to refute the con

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Successful reversal, but what about...

Dave Crocker wrote in <8de533b1-b92b-4dff-a8e0-7aa8e739c...@bbiw.net>: |On 2/4/2025 2:43 PM, Wei Chuang wrote: |> Each originator or forwarder has to own the entire message that leaves |> its system | |Wei, thanks for the comments. | |If your above statement is true, then why is it necessa

[Ietf-dkim] Re: Charter v5 available

On 2/3/2025 8:58 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 10:00 AM Dave Crocker wrote: As such, an honest and pragmatic charter needs to cite that draft and needs to explicitly encourage consideration of alternatives. I think I'm fine with adding something like this, thou