IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-srose-dkim-ecc-00.txt

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 07 April 2017 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17841120725 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 09:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wZpl6J5SyN5c for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 09:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E8A11294E1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 09:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 99098 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2017 16:26:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 7 Apr 2017 16:26:23 -0000
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 16:26:01 -0000
Message-ID: <20170407162601.50961.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: federico.santandrea@diennea.com
In-Reply-To: <30f3baa9-f13b-91b4-c931-a2fb6858243a@diennea.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/9K0WeMpxIYOH9bU9FChx3dvYb8o>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-srose-dkim-ecc-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 16:27:02 -0000

In article <30f3baa9-f13b-91b4-c931-a2fb6858243a@diennea.com> you write:
>If we want to put a meaningful value in this new field, I think it would
>be more useful to make it the time since when the key was obsoleted,
>this would allow for mail dated before that moment (which was correctly
>signed only with then-not-obsolete keys) to pass verification. This
>should be optional, so one could choose if he rather have some valid
>mail fail verification, or risk some invalid back-dated mail pass
>verification.

Good lord, no.  That's why DKIM has key rotation.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email