[ietf-dkim] Re: The Value of Reputation
Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Wed, 04 January 2006 17:22 UTC
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EuCLS-00072c-Lw for ietf-dkim-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2006 12:22:42 -0500
Received: from sb7.songbird.com (sb7.songbird.com [208.184.79.137]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01758 for <ietf-dkim-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jan 2006 12:21:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sb7.songbird.com (sb7.songbird.com [127.0.0.1]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k04HJ0x1003638; Wed, 4 Jan 2006 09:19:00 -0800
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k04HIqL9003620 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Wed, 4 Jan 2006 09:18:53 -0800
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1EuCGl-000347-5k for ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2006 18:17:51 +0100
Received: from 1cust189.tnt9.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net ([149.225.140.189]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Wed, 04 Jan 2006 18:17:51 +0100
Received: from nobody by 1cust189.tnt9.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Wed, 04 Jan 2006 18:17:51 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 18:13:26 +0100
Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <43BC0236.120C@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <43A8893F.9010700@dcrocker.net> <p06230999bfce5a5d1975@[10.20.30.249]> <43A8C2EC.4060401@dcrocker.net> <B69E2466D9070E5D27F23698@scan.jck.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0512210509190.23251@sokol.elan.net> <D0D38CAF74341DE0D597AEAD@svartdal.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0512210901030.23251@sokol.elan.net> <0b0d55f43c319b517cad80dd1d5d76d0@guppylake.com> <1135458563.17219.79.camel@bash.adsl-64-142-13-68> <e94764f4db0096fee65ff6a2d27a753b@guppylake.com> <20051231043648.GA17422@verdi> <43B85EB7.2090800@dcrocker.net> <1136252380.17219.374.camel@bash.adsl-64-142-13-68> <43BA24BF.465D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <F74361FB-9CDC-4331-8231-A0C48F4987F7@mail-abuse.org> <43BAD2FC.9080506@cs.tcd.ie> <49349E98-510E-4468-AD78-3DDE8820ADB9@mail-abuse.org> <43BBEE27.8040107@cs.tcd.ie>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust189.tnt9.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U)
X-Songbird: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Re: The Value of Reputation
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
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>
Sender: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird-From: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Stephen Farrell wrote: > there will be a time when the group should be focusing on > the policy stuff, but its just not yet. For now we ought be > focusing on the threats draft. s/now/tomorrow/ after the WG is chartered... ;-) I think I've now got Doug's terminology of "closed" vs. "open", it 's like "open interval" vs. "closed interval" for real numbers. In that case it's wrong / esoteric / dubious (pick what you like) for sets of IPs, because there's only a finite number of IPs. We don't need "open intervals" or the "axiom of choice" to construct say three sets FAIL, PASS, and DUNNO covering all IPs, with each IP in precisely one of these three sets. > You also ought accept that making the same "not ssp" point > in a million ways doesn't make it a new point. We all know > that you don't like ssp. There's no need to tell us again. Yes, but he might be up to something real. Keith _also_ said that we might need a new "opaque-id". William specified a new "submitter" for spf2.0/submit, compatible with the "submitter" in the [draft-katz-submitter] RfC, but completely independent of PRA. Maybe they (Doug / Keith / William) see something that we still fail to see. That I fail to see it is no big surprise, because I think that the Return-Path should do the trick. But that does not help for DKIM + SSP, DKIM cannot use the Return-Path. This "opaque-id" could be a new general concept, some kind of an improved crypto-PRA-cum-Message-ID, with DKIM as its first serious application. Well, I see where this might be "off topic" starting tomorrow. But if they (Doug / Keith / William) are right I seriously hope that it's ready before the future DKIM WG tries to tackle SSP. And I hope that Keith will be the editor of this obscure beast, because so far I always understood what he talks about, while Doug often and William sometimes are beyond me. > The comment was more directed to the rest of the folks > discussing this with you over and over. If what he says about SPF is wrong / dubious I've to challenge it, and I also don't see any "open-endedness" in SSP so far: Every domain is free to send no mail, and to publish this as "v=spf1 -all" or nullmx or what else. It's also free to say that it only uses certain routes, or always uses some kind of signature, etc., and to publish this decision in a policy. If that hurts users they can vote with their feet. Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
- [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Keith Moore
- [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Keith Moore
- [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Keith Moore
- [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Keith Moore
- [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Arvel Hathcock
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Mark Delany
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… william(at)elan.net
- [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Arvel Hathcock
- [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Barry Leiba
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Dave Crocker
- [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Arvel Hathcock
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Andrew Newton
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Barry Leiba
- [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Mark Delany
- [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Cullen Jennings
- Pre-picking one solution (Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG … Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Pre-picking one solution (Re: [ietf-dkim] Re:… Keith Moore
- Re: Pre-picking one solution (Re: [ietf-dkim] Re:… Stephen Farrell
- [ietf-dkim] Timeframes & status for external cons… Steve Atkins
- [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Keith Moore
- Re: Pre-picking one solution (Re: [ietf-dkim] Re:… Keith Moore
- [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Jim Fenton
- Re: Pre-picking one solution (Re: [ietf-dkim] Re:… william(at)elan.net
- Re: Pre-picking one solution (Re: [ietf-dkim] Re:… Barry Leiba
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Arvel Hathcock
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Arvel Hathcock
- Re: Pre-picking one solution (Re: [ietf-dkim] Re:… william(at)elan.net
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Timeframes & status for external … Dave Crocker
- Re: Pre-picking one solution (Re: [ietf-dkim] Re:… Keith Moore
- Re: Pre-picking one solution (Re: [ietf-dkim] Re:… Arvel Hathcock
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… william(at)elan.net
- [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Frank Ellermann
- [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Keith Moore
- Re: Pre-picking one solution (Re: [ietf-dkim] Re:… Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Dave Crocker
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Pre-picking one solution Frank Ellermann
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Patrick Peterson
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Arvel Hathcock
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Pre-picking one solution Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Mark Delany
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Timeframes & status for external … J.D. Falk
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Timeframes & status for external … Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Timeframes & status for external … Andrew Newton
- Re: Pre-picking one solution (Re: [ietf-dkim] Re:… william(at)elan.net
- [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… william(at)elan.net
- [ietf-dkim] RE: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- [ietf-dkim] RE: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [ietf-dkim] RE: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Arvel Hathcock
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… william(at)elan.net
- Re: The Value of Reputation (was Re: [ietf-dkim] … Douglas Otis
- Re: The Value of Reputation (was Re: [ietf-dkim] … Hector Santos
- Re: The Value of Reputation (was Re: [ietf-dkim] … Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identi… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: The Value of Reputation (was Re: [ietf-dkim] … Dave Crocker
- [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified… Russ Housley
- Re: The Value of Reputation (was Re: [ietf-dkim] … Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: The Value of Reputation Mike Wolf
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: The Value of Reputation John Levine
- [ietf-dkim] Re: The Value of Reputation Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: The Value of Reputation Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: The Value of Reputation Stephen Farrell
- [ietf-dkim] Re: The Value of Reputation Jim Fenton
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: The Value of Reputation Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: The Value of Reputation Jim Fenton
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: The Value of Reputation Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: The Value of Reputation Douglas Otis
- [ietf-dkim] Re: The Value of Reputation Frank Ellermann
- Staying on-topic (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: The Va… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: The Value of Reputation Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: The Value of Reputation Scott Kitterman
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Staying on-topic Stephen Farrell
- The Value of Arguing About Reputation (was Re: [i… J.D. Falk
- Re: Staying on-topic (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Th… Douglas Otis
- [ietf-dkim] SSP; Is it safe and fair? Douglas Otis
- [ietf-dkim] Let's get back to chartering/threats … Scott Kitterman