IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-dkim] Working group last call on draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report

"J.D. Falk" <jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org> Tue, 05 October 2010 00:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A9FA3A6ECA for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 17:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31UrPDcnsbyk for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 17:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5063A6CC3 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 17:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [127.0.0.1]) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o950Exj5029442; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 17:15:06 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=mipassoc.org; s=k00001; t=1286237710; bh=7j71O6ACNKed7TfcYRSvGVCy4bo=; h=References: In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:Message-Id:From:Date:To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=Mt/8/ulcomtoswVkn O0EPKeiGUcVMTmit4khnjk3l5Ht+WtDS9eqP63ol5dRylnOaJfjq9HeQp2H3mFHNKzm ZCotebPyX8PnZBNfX5hQxl4GM/cZRP2C8FkjtRpbLaE6jkmRVv9Q26mdUsIyAuGZYT3 KTWsYl7zlZcaDvdEefwA=
Received: from ocelope.disgruntled.net (ocelope.disgruntled.net [97.107.131.76]) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o950EpQl029436 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 17:14:57 -0700
Received: from [10.6.158.159] (72-255-8-117.client.stsn.net [72.255.8.117]) (authenticated bits=0) by ocelope.disgruntled.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id o94NenWK030844 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 16:40:51 -0700
References: <AANLkTi=ukF2B-UJsooQKSxOfz54-Dsye0RPG_swLpWxn@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1010041705480.14230@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1010041705480.14230@joyce.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Message-Id: <6446F073-FAA1-4B88-84C3-1EC73A0EB1F0@cybernothing.org>
From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 19:40:43 -0400
To: DKIM List <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [127.0.0.1]); Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Greylist: Delayed for 00:34:00 by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.70]); Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sbh17.songbird.com id o950EpQl029436
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Working group last call on draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM Discussion List <ietf-dkim.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org

On Oct 4, 2010, at 5:06 PM, John R. Levine wrote:

>> to Draft Standard.  Everyone please review it, and post
>> comments/issues. Please also post here if you've reviewed it and think
>> it's ready to go.
> 
> I have reviewed it, and it looks ready to go.

+1

Regarding Hector's complaint, I think a separate usage report focused on 1st/3rd party signing practices may be appropriate -- but I don't think it makes sense to hold up the advancement of the DKIM base spec for that.


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email