IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [marf] DISCUSS on draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 13 March 2012 02:29 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C63921F8858 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.901, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, 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 6-b2HUZgEjqo for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
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 9D5E821F8834 for <marf@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 51532 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2012 02:29:05 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2012 02:29:05 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f5eb0f1.xn--btvx9d.k1203; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=6D7Zu9zMFhLLSJRyl43n3BDTIFX9mFnFGnVZEr9eJX4=; b=t3FTfBT8j+JyMH1ON3xsh7nwF/pJoDhfG7cMba9iHZb9AtXrz4XI06LP0yD3xvI/6LvF+WaLNva+0ABP+3rvtv+zpdgXHqdXAzqFbmc5/gVtff47XzVyEMpP9LcW+a5PSz8ZjxkExtnvSXKyrwFB6XQfb2uDrmB6vAFXj89/dRE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f5eb0f1.xn--btvx9d.k1203; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=6D7Zu9zMFhLLSJRyl43n3BDTIFX9mFnFGnVZEr9eJX4=; b=gkVBui7liqecDL878DTb9vMO66wsDwGtvECjiXMeUnVy8ak7tQDIVbxLXM9X9TLX3+uEdbExHZZ5T7YlBsdIEFIBkHunHECabuCLkM6H2NkfH9/8otrwkh86Qjhve22c+hKyRe9zFF49mwHXKXJSEQzhV0cDTp0/CxbYb5JUDuo=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 02:28:43 -0000
Message-ID: <20120313022843.88402.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: marf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928085D5D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [marf] DISCUSS on draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 02:29:09 -0000

>> The correct clarification is one report per /signing/ domain per
>> message.  If a domain includes multiple signatures in a given message,
>> they may get a report for each failed one.
>
>Yes, that's the change I'm proposing.

Seems reasonable to me.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email