IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 - Message Modifications

Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> Tue, 23 August 2011 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E9A721F8C36 for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.809
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.809 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.290, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 sjtD9dE1IWuR for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com (mail-pz0-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9003821F8C13 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33so118864pzk.18 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=JJyuMtW5fmCKecOKF/YYTHsj1WLV/SJ/2JGXtjTDY9o=; b=vQQfMb4pO848WnmRPQFr0imA21ZovZqkoDqU6vTq9NE8WJLhMz26ZP5QU8FaHa/GIE nQz2K0SuNKlPD94ZfeR2g7yMK3Pd3YSPBILJOs+YeoCcGkaNYmT9TzkkpzQVY1XQ+Wqa WdNZisqYIzejvIY6OZFnQ/OxwuyQkVcawWT04=
Received: by 10.143.69.12 with SMTP id w12mr2185068wfk.298.1314130889125; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.98.5 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110822212849.08fcabf8@elandnews.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110822151213.0aea6018@elandnews.com> <4E52EBE4.9010700@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110822212849.08fcabf8@elandnews.com>
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:21:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHhFyboZeWw=wKL7G66uPn6jYMHrA1q6ZV4S41RLT6fCZd3LzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: yam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 - Message Modifications
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 20:20:21 -0000

On 23 August 2011 06:43, S Moonesamy wrote:

> I would appreciate some more feedback.

One potential conflict is an MSA following "MAY add Sender", and a
DKIM signature explicitly confirming the absence of a Sender header
field.  Several things are odd in this scenario, but it is clearly
not the wish to add a Sender.  In other words, 4409bis is not a
good place to discuss this oddity, and it would be very wrong if
an MSA stops to add a Sender only because it breaks a "no Sender"
signature.  Let's remove the note, it is not helpful.  If there is
a problem in this scenario it is elsewhere, not in 4409bis, and not
in DKIM.

-Frank

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email