Re: [Bimi] BIMI & the MUA
Taavi Eomäe <taavi@zone.ee> Fri, 08 September 2023 08:12 UTC
Return-Path: <taavi@zone.ee>
X-Original-To: bimi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bimi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC69C151073 for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Sep 2023 01:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.091, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zone.ee
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UADXdorfHPu8 for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Sep 2023 01:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MTA-244-111.TLL07.ZONEAS.EU (mta-244-111.tll07.zoneas.eu [85.234.244.111]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB942C151064 for <bimi@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Sep 2023 01:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zone.ee; q=dns/txt; s=zone; bh=4muJ8hRngB3W3X5FVpHc9PxNPaZQH5yGxb44Bxy5xEs=; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to:references; b=RmxVmSv0alx4Qx13Uu/4/V6dr+DsuzdxSzVZoIgg0EDf7dIiEbLecGTM150CqnyR+uA6JoN2r fttPlpDDRjg3ML94goVg1619zvXi5I3KP0XGFD/juLCY5RJB19HhvS4zlJHfApVeujS72wr5vuj RuEj1ZvQbpsxRgQ0k6mpfYltszgmwblIeYnbUtwsKTMJs9eENVydCrE/eeqWwNiN0N60jkjEkcg +pF+7O4T8aVZbwOULX4UKggGECCuS1QJxHs/6mUbW1YhD7bCPEypjh0eZugnoJRiSWfji+7Vmb6 YfAJgTBTQASELjzYj4FcnQH2GFA5r6CcSfxVW86Nk2ww==
Received: from [192.168.110.11] [217.146.66.6] (Authenticated sender: zmail526721[taavi@zone.ee]) by MTA-244-111.TLL07.ZONEAS.EU (ZoneMTA Forwarder) with ESMTPSA id 18a73d9acf8000024c.001 for <bimi@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Fri, 08 Sep 2023 08:12:40 +0000
Message-ID: <70defc34-d1b2-828c-5100-7aa8c0c806ee@zone.ee>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2023 11:12:38 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: bimi@ietf.org
References: <MN2PR11MB43512B68983A21E6B546E0BDF7EAA@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <5a3abe26-cb49-5350-0abd-a106125fb087@zone.ee> <MN2PR11MB43518ED6E51BD484B3342518F7EEA@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <d15564bc-8fe8-c118-29e6-e18657c582af@zone.ee> <98924711-db15-43df-9f6a-ed072a767666@betaapp.fastmail.com>
From: Taavi Eomäe <taavi@zone.ee>
Organization: Zone Media OÜ
In-Reply-To: <98924711-db15-43df-9f6a-ed072a767666@betaapp.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms070908010800020907020306"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bimi/y3Ihj2BE6KZPvYgJbAHwVx19nBg>
Subject: Re: [Bimi] BIMI & the MUA
X-BeenThere: bimi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Brand Indicators for Message Identification <bimi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bimi>, <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bimi/>
List-Post: <mailto:bimi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bimi>, <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2023 08:12:53 -0000
Hi, There's no need to call it "DKIM-Signature", just not reinventing the rest of the DKIM RFC would be significantly better than the current draft. Though it does seem like yet another hypothetical to accommodate badly designed recipient systems, if such signatures actually affect the signing domain's reputation.
- [Bimi] BIMI & the MUA Brotman, Alex
- Re: [Bimi] BIMI & the MUA Taavi Eomäe
- Re: [Bimi] BIMI & the MUA Brotman, Alex
- Re: [Bimi] BIMI & the MUA Taavi Eomäe
- Re: [Bimi] BIMI & the MUA Marc Bradshaw
- Re: [Bimi] BIMI & the MUA Taavi Eomäe
- Re: [Bimi] BIMI & the MUA Brotman, Alex
- Re: [Bimi] BIMI & the MUA Brotman, Alex