IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: How to protect DKIM signatures: Moving ADSP to Historic, supporting DMARC instead

Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com> Thu, 03 October 2013 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88B6F21E8089 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 15:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JFIpE7SZo5uZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 15:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com (mail-pa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9701D21E809C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 15:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id hz1so3228148pad.30 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 15:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=4DJr+v8ZqxE9R2fyQ8eAypo9N2iTz0s2K4CJCFogET4=; b=lzrKQVyPEAqpyGoQeCtqPvk8NzngIIqBF4KAomSwxz3bx2Py9/6+RvYqVTjTafw/G3 MORhDQwFdSlZVmo/ER4o0FykBdLaDdieavNsRIv6T2EP+8QAczRMuGS0yGIYKhSRPrW/ AJJW8F23bIWZL4L1fZgtqultikmCvJG8KrOyooN5GBoIOmvYF4g5bZ7oyLnTOt8+adQz KAHXYAhH9JKj09QH8o8/b2IAJzTPrCnTuNTYRp1+1gdcb3wVm15er5AMExDFiFW77lfz 6NjlOnChe7Ll4VtMIurhFBxNd4679Qos6Q0UvGMEqxMaFfXdErWwqBss0YVhfIgS2RWB ysrA==
X-Received: by 10.66.25.133 with SMTP id c5mr11923049pag.4.1380839157410; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 15:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.54] (107-0-5-6-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [107.0.5.6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id aq1sm10492466pbc.9.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Oct 2013 15:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: How to protect DKIM signatures: Moving ADSP to Historic, supporting DMARC instead
From: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVCOtpUtziSOsa3N=vzKO3_gBHAm4UWhSQVgECdhc2zJcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 15:25:54 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F8768A46-0C02-4884-87FE-78FFD4C6D3C8@gmail.com>
References: <20131002144143.20697.85830.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL0qLwZQcXm=EauyKXVqGaUB99sTQgxf2csy0_N489TdfwRr4A@mail.gmail.com> <524D5ACF.3020008@isdg.net> <2F9821D3-C782-46FD-8AD6-B988CF0E6C55@gmail.com> <524DCBA0.1090302@isdg.net> <CAC4RtVCOtpUtziSOsa3N=vzKO3_gBHAm4UWhSQVgECdhc2zJcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 22:26:39 -0000

On Oct 3, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:

> To both Doug and Hector, and others who want to drift in this direction:
> 
> As I've said before, the question of moving ADSP to Historic is one
> we're taking on its own, and is not connected to anything we do or
> don't do with DMARC.  Bringing DMARC into the discussion is a
> distraction, and, worse, makes it look like there's a tie-in.  There
> is not.

Dear Berry,

Even John Levine the author had opine along these same lines.  The response to Hector was agreeing a reason should be given, along with agreeing with his justifications.  The tie-in may be limited, but nevertheless DMARC has become the chosen alternative.  It seems if any reasons are given for moving ADSP to historic it also should conjecture why DMARC and not ADSP, unless your point is nothing has been learned?

Regards,
Douglas Otis

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email