Re: [dmarc-ietf] "Missed it by *that* much". . .
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 17 March 2017 13:55 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 EC9E3129432 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 06:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.852
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 gGIs0lynrIJN for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 06:55:05 -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 DFCB0129421 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 06:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 69908 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2017 13:55:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 17 Mar 2017 13:55:03 -0000
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:23:15 -0000
Message-ID: <20170317002315.50000.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: superuser@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZDCbP2tWAp6RH38jTdkZueH8WPTbwd6Kfjk6Y0csZEXg@mail.gmail.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/lALM68dJa8OC1liQBz44aVrGaXc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] "Missed it by *that* much". . .
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, 17 Mar 2017 13:55:06 -0000
In article <CAL0qLwZDCbP2tWAp6RH38jTdkZueH8WPTbwd6Kfjk6Y0csZEXg@mail.gmail.com> you write: >I'm not sure how you could go about registering key lengths. What do you >have in mind? Come to DISPATCH and learn all about it. The general point is that DKIM's key advice is kind of stale -- 512 bit keys are too short, 1024 keys are OK now, but within the likely lifetime of this spec we'll need longer keys. The obvious suggestion is 2048 except they don't fit in a single TXT record string, and way too much DNS web crudware(tm) doesn't handle multiple strings. Oh, and elliptic curve. R's, John
- [dmarc-ietf] "Missed it by *that* much". . . Kurt Andersen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] "Missed it by *that* much". . . Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] "Missed it by *that* much". . . John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] "Missed it by *that* much". . . Murray S. Kucherawy