On 4/2/25 10:49 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Wed 02/Apr/2025 18:03:31 +0200 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
No, it's not so much the interpretation of pass/fail, which I think
will be expressed by policies anyway, but the checks you perform to
achieve that resul
On Wed 02/Apr/2025 18:03:31 +0200 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
No, it's not so much the interpretation of pass/fail, which I think will be
expressed by policies anyway, but the checks you perform to achieve that
result. DKIM2 checks the envelope, for example, wh
On 4/1/2025 8:42 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 1 Apr 2025, at 22:30, Dave Crocker wrote:
When calling to have a wg adopt a draft, it is worth reviewing
comments on that draft beforehand
The draft version that was called for adoption is drastically
different than the draft on which you commented,
On Tue 01/Apr/2025 19:45:10 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 10:26 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
The resulting DKIM verifier is not semi-broken, it's DKIM2-tolerant. And
it's not just a library change, it's also the MTA interface.
First you said: "a DKIM1 verifier will
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
>No, it's not so much the interpretation of pass/fail, which I think will be
>expressed by policies anyway, but the checks you perform to achieve that
>result. DKIM2 checks the envelope, for example, which DKIM1 does not. So
>DKIM2 may fail on messages
On 4/2/25 1:45 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
On 2 Apr 2025, at 00:26, Michael Thomas wrote:
Who cares? These micro-optimizations are pointless. It solves a problem that
nobody is asking to be solved. I'm just trying to imagine the conversation with
a CIO:
Smaller and simpler means cheaper mainte
> On 2 Apr 2025, at 00:26, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>
> On 4/1/25 3:19 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
>> In message , Michael
>> Thomas writes
>>
>> > Two different code paths, two different places for screw ups and
>> > maintenance. I'm with Murray that there is a lot of appeal to backward
>> >
On Wed, Apr 2, 2025, at 13:53, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Speaking of standard, I see that this draft is listed as intending standards
> track. That´s quite unusual for a ´motivation´ document. I am curious how
> conformance/interoperability will be tested?
>
That would be an oversight on my part.
