IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps-11.txt> (DKIM Authorized Third-Party Signers) to Experimental RFC

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Tue, 06 December 2011 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 D6CD21F0C69 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 17:24:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 dm99ztUKCCjD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 17:24:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E661F0C63 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 17:24:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 7413 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2011 01:24:39 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=1cf4.4edd6ed7.k1112; bh=Gi+MG9HKoydGsF9CsaGGIog92/SUpbiYP1ri/Xm0z/k=; b=Tiwlm9Jf6AQw0k8ENRP/eB9Cb3CvU5lty95olgusKMWHpGQGNEbDaxXIiv+GXenEwKR3CEApU22uCSR8WS1Yk038yw+TqbYqAS20HGgDUzIHr+1rFuM7BCL1a6oWJqCLfuTZxaY+Hy50A8C016mrqnTsSFhJh+lXvXhniVvM6jo=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 6 Dec 2011 01:24:17 -0000
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:24:36 -0800
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112051717090.2317@joyce.lan>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps-11.txt> (DKIM Authorized Third-Party Signers) to Experimental RFC
In-Reply-To: <4EDD59AB.9030305@dcrocker.net>
References: <20111204212736.64731.qmail@joyce.lan> <4EDD59AB.9030305@dcrocker.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
Cleverness: None detected
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: 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: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 01:24:41 -0000

> ATPS essentially modifies name extraction, by making it a two-step process. 
> The first step is the usual one, with d=, for use with validation, but the 
> second one takes the domain in the From: field and makes it the output string 
> to the assessment process.

If you're referring to the second paragraph in section 5, I agree that the 
second sentence should go, or at least be rewritten to clarify that the 
client is supposed to pretend that the message passed ADSP.  If it's 
anything else in atps-11, you'll have to help me out with references to 
specific language.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email