Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why mailing lists

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 04 May 2014 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6061A011F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 May 2014 02:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.473
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 aZPHVufNjswB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 May 2014 02:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6151A0054 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 May 2014 02:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1399195006; bh=kqgc7JSY4s4sWpApJMmW3EUAs8hv3jlPCgXDS7e81zE=; l=577; h=Date:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=kp01i6hRRIv/65kBN/zJ4GLffAuo+9Budrpe1B+IxBoVbR6tMcYCZ7ElGTb1db2Zs 7EtMhkckvAREHAZM/7hELu7E+eAPW+zjigMOFwDBQtsot+yqIpegwVRSqNuoL79nFo HV/SGZWirhVbyg+XVZ5ty2EPbNTfo8RjLqbMIULA=
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.88] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.88]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Sun, 04 May 2014 11:16:46 +0200 id 00000000005DC039.000000005366057E.000036AA
Message-ID: <5366057E.3070106@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 11:16:46 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why mailing lists
References: <20140417181815.8A5871ACD1@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <9451.1397772992@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwa0a4nDAdCHkkMJdeemsj+cezcmH3+59CvhF8q7B72ryg@mail.gmail.com> <53518F69.90703@gmail.com> <20140418210428.GC23005@thunk.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140418210428.GC23005@thunk.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VJQMJnWgfdkIrNJwSJPDczD1ing
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 04 May 2014 09:16:54 -0000

On Fri 18/Apr/2014 23:04:28 +0200 Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 
> After all, we know S/MIME successfully passes through mailing lists,
> and if in fact the message was appropriately signed using an S/MIME
> cert, it would be quite natural to have the UA's display the
> information from the Common Name field of the cert.

Nope.  Just today I saw Thunderbird closing a bug I reported last
year.  TB S/MIME doesn't consider a message as signed after it has
been wrapped by a mailing list.  The resolution is WONTFIX.
   https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=885286

Ale