On 3/31/25 9:28 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 1:56 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
There is room for a lot of compatibility. If we don't change the
canonicalizations, a DKIM1 verifier will be able to verify a DKIM2
signature,
limited to DKIM1 semantics. [..
On 3/23/25 3:40 AM, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Michael Thomas said:
-=-=-=-=-=-
I'm about half way through the audio session and just finished the
rationale for a single rcpt-to. I'd like to turn that rationale on it's
head: if this is pretty much the way the world operates now (which
On 2 Apr 2025, at 12:53, Dave Crocker wrote:
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
d
On Mon 24/Mar/2025 14:13:01 +0100 Richard Clayton wrote:
In message <04daef5f-46a1-4393-8f42-677d2d375...@tana.it>, Alessandro Vesely
writes
Accommodating multiple recipients in the signature would have the added value
of confirming to whom a message is destined. There are companies that nee
Colleagues,
I am of the belief that if and when DKIM2 reaches a state of widespread
adoption, there is no longer a need for Domain Owners signing with DKIM2 to
participate in DMARC, a belief I expressed during the IETF 122 meeting. I
did not hear consensus for my belief, but I still don't understa
Alessandro Vesely wrote in
:
|On Mon 31/Mar/2025 21:32:54 +0200 John Levine wrote:
|> Most (all?) non-trace headers are defined to occur only once, like \
|> From: and Subject:
|>
|> How about we say that if a signer or verifier sees more than one \
|> of them, stop
|> and the result is fai
-- Forwarded message -
From: IETF Secretariat
Date: Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 10:15 PM
Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-gondwana-dkim2-header
To: ,
The IETF WG state of draft-gondwana-dkim2-header has been changed to "Call
For Adoption By WG Issued" from "Candidate for WG Ad
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On the other hand, I was looking at the modification algebra document. It
implicitly assumes that the headers that are being modified occur only
once.
Does that imply that Resent-* headers cannot be signed?
No.
R's
John
Participating:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 3:04 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> >> In this strawman, the "rt=" single recipient construct is meant to
> support
> >> Bcc and other privacy sensitive cases where it only makes sense to have
> a
> >> single recipient. Declaring multiple recipients that ar
On Sun, Mar 23, 2025, 2:13 p.m. Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 3/23/25 9:47 AM, Allen Robinson wrote:
> > Perhaps the issue is that two similar but different things are being
> > conflated here.
> >
> > Is DKIM2 a new protocol? I think the answer to this is clearly yes. We
> > are defining a new in
On 3/24/2025 8:05 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I agree that such a world is possible -- I mean, anything is possible
-- but I would really like such a change to come from below rather
than above.
+10.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast:
On Sat 05/Apr/2025 18:58:02 +0200 John R Levine wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
If we could just say these headers only occur once, if you see two just give
up, it makes the process somewhat simpler and more importantly ends the
argument about oversigning.
This argument ov
This seems to presume that "dkim2" is some creature completely apart
from DKIM. That is not at all clear, and it's not clear what is being
proposed is anything more than plain old DKIM with a few new tags and
some normative text surrounding them. I don't think that changes
anything wrt to DMARC
-- Forwarded message -
From: IETF Secretariat
Date: Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 10:15 PM
Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-gondwana-dkim2-motivation
To: ,
The IETF WG state of draft-gondwana-dkim2-motivation has been changed to
"Call For Adoption By WG Issued" from "Candidate for
On 3/21/25 8:30 AM, Todd Herr wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 11:17 AM Michael Thomas wrote:
I really don't know why we should presume it's something
completely different wrt DMARC. Why would it be? I'm not really
sure what the point is of bringing it up at this point in any
c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message <04daef5f-46a1-4393-8f42-677d2d375...@tana.it>, Alessandro
Vesely writes
>Accommodating multiple recipients in the signature would have the added value
>of confirming to whom a message is destined. There are companies that need to
>cert
Totally off topic, but I just saw a high rise collapse in Bangkok.
Hopefully all of the IETF'ers that were there are accounted for. Maybe
somebody knows how to contribute a relief fund?
Mike
___
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsu
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
If we could just say these headers only occur once, if you see two just
give up, it makes the process somewhat simpler and more importantly ends
the argument about oversigning.
This argument overlaps with the idea of having those header fields silen
On Mon 24/Mar/2025 20:19:29 +0100 Richard Clayton wrote:
In message , Alessandro Vesely
writes
BTW, is dkim2=fail different from "failing DKIM2 signatures from a 100% DKIM2
mail chain"? I mean, do verifiers always check all the signatures along the
chain or can sometimes check just the last
It appears that Wei Chuang said:
>To sign a message, the signer must find the maximum instance tag "i=n",
>denoted as M. To add a new DKIM2-Signature, first verify that there isn't
>any to be defined in the future indication that the message "left" DKIM2. ...
I have a few questions that might g
Michael Thomas wrote in
<00a151ab-6a3b-48e4-9ce5-5d6fc807b...@mtcc.com>:
|[.]I'd like to turn that rationale on it's
|head:[.]
Just a final note before i get moderated on this list.
Please do not invent another protocol where the software and
administrator community needs to invent, create an
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
>>> Most (all?) non-trace headers are defined to occur only once, like From:
>>> and Subject:
>>
>> I think this could work also and agree it would shorten the list of header
>> fields that have to be oversigned.
>>
>> No, this is a useless optimization t
On Wed 02/Apr/2025 18:01:40 +0200 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
Most (all?) non-trace headers are defined to occur only once, like From:
and Subject:
I think this could work also and agree it would shorten the list of header
fields that have to be oversigned.
On 3/23/25 9:47 AM, Allen Robinson wrote:
Perhaps the issue is that two similar but different things are being
conflated here.
Is DKIM2 a new protocol? I think the answer to this is clearly yes. We
are defining a new interaction between systems.
That's not very clear to me for many of the r
On 3/31/25 9:37 AM, Al Iverson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:30 AM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 1:56 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
There is room for a lot of compatibility. If we don't change the
canonicalizations, a DKIM1 verifier will be able to verify a DKIM2 signa
On Thu 20/Mar/2025 09:57:26 +0100 Bron Gondwana wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025, at 08:24, Wei Chuang wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:51 AM Bron Gondwana
wrote:
I'll take this as a review comment that I need to be much more clear on how it
works! This text from section 2 tried to describe how
26 matches
Mail list logo
