IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Updating DKIM for stronger crypto

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 06 February 2017 02:15 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D781293E9 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 18:15:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6OJOcvdYyp-x for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 18:15:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46B3F120727 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 18:15:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF867BE39; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 02:15:18 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 66xqfmOmN8jV; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 02:15:17 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.75] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1CAD1BDF9; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 02:15:17 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1486347317; bh=Kz0vBnyhf62FGtMKKjfbnMQMU9zS1anaEnS1fOxWiuU=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=dtusat06qzvqWsGGJRZiPZF2/NGvArOe3GNq4UQtU2LuhC3sQgLfOp0+A9pi1QUW3 j/5up65fjyZeX7JoUB1a3vNvbJ3GoUGFoJ3+7b/G3nNPcnJo3esQeIVUkIpHyi34FF S1MM5W3GsNs9Zw8xHbgcWy/QjB/sn8pwuFR5fG3E=
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dispatch@ietf.org
References: <20170206020826.1108.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <ffac8e7c-6930-acf3-9415-a6a6a53d2cc2@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 02:15:16 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170206020826.1108.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms080303000507080001010700"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/g6WRz9WwRtVqnL16WZp4YyPnmNY>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Updating DKIM for stronger crypto
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 02:15:23 -0000


On 06/02/17 02:08, John Levine wrote:
> Does this seem reasonable?

Eminently, assuming implementers want ed25519 and those
deploying will adopt it. There are, IMO, good reasons for
both to also like that idea, but whether or not they
realise that is to be seen I guess.

S.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email