[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Straw consensus call on auth-header draft

To: Douglas Otis <dotis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Straw consensus call on auth-header draft
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:24:55 -0700
Cc: dcrocker@xxxxxxxx, ietf-imapext@xxxxxxx, Mail-Vet-Discuss <mail-vet-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, ietf-smtp@xxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sendmail.com; s=ladle.dkim; t=1224019512; bh=ujT8QwH5fdaiMnFMa09sN5QtiZgPiP9TM5Ub uIH4xC8=; h=Received:X-DKIM:DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:From: User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-MM-Ex-RefId; b=phTB0hRRQ7 9a7QExGved090I4Anc97IEQPOnN1qqptL52v9l35aHI7Yp2gPP381CUSzXjH9q04YHT aXSqwU8+Ui3gMpoZtpKn8EUd8lxfNaFRC+km1qzjMUEmsSVvnwct4s3l7g23OY9JynL WWFPuXUE+lC4eYVcRCX1L81YAJA=
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sendmail.com; s=spork.dkim; t=1224019476; bh=ujT8QwH5fdaiMnFMa09sN5QtiZgPiP9TM5Ub uIH4xC8=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC: Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-MM-Ex-RefId; b=eEdWOUmXgI12OHsqJlwBcvG 4688pSwlnM+Fk0Sf9gZbPopRnOfyB3CWls1PEUkpW/n9du0vxXWmv/xlFxG0nsVM13G EdgzkO6ojiVu4PYi/wk7mrJcHp1HEgpdYX6sSfwYrRFUwnG4H6uhB6L4Fnn//92ugBq LfkhB7cLZck6u8=
In-reply-to: <0504E530-67BB-479B-BC84-416365183338@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-imapext/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-imapext.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-imapext-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <ca722a9e0810121429r363f8bfey2e5ae5807bf6d8d1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <48F38765.30508@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <48F3A198.2080700@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <48F3A85B.8020906@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <0504E530-67BB-479B-BC84-416365183338@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ietf-imapext@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)


Douglas Otis wrote:

Agreed. However, when a domain attempts to assert control over theFrom header field using DKIM and ADSP, they must "pretend" toauthenticate an email-address within the From header field.

I don't think we're talking about any such assertions here. We're onlyinterested in protecting an Authentication-Results: header added by aborder MTA on inbound mail. Seems like ADSP and even From: are somewhatirrelevant to this discussion.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Straw consensus call on auth-header draft
  - From: Douglas Otis
- Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Straw consensus call on auth-header draft
  - From: Steve Atkins

References:
- Straw consensus call on auth-header draft
  - From: Lisa Dusseault
- Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Straw consensus call on auth-header draft
  - From: Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Straw consensus call on auth-header draft
  - From: Dave CROCKER
- Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Straw consensus call on auth-header draft
  - From: Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Straw consensus call on auth-header draft
  - From: Douglas Otis

Prev by Date: Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Straw consensus call on auth-header draft
Next by Date: Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Straw consensus call on auth-header draft
Previous by thread: Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Straw consensus call on auth-header draft
Next by thread: Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Straw consensus call on auth-header draft
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread