IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Tue, 23 August 2011 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 1F15521F8BBB for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.445, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 5LGl2MaNfkEB for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F24B21F8B54 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:12:33 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Yet Another Mail Working Group <yam@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:12:32 -0700
Thread-Topic: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 - Message Modifications
Thread-Index: AcxhnEozzzw5RopoTKmGP3+opl1NoQAG32MQ
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DF853@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110822151213.0aea6018@elandnews.com> <4E52EBE4.9010700@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110822212849.08fcabf8@elandnews.com> <CAC4RtVC6P3arC0eukFF44BORbXVxykDrB_3YryW4usMDwnCEKA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVC6P3arC0eukFF44BORbXVxykDrB_3YryW4usMDwnCEKA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 17:11:26 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: yam-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:yam-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 6:55 AM
> To: Yet Another Mail Working Group
> Subject: Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-ietf-yam- rfc4409bis-02 - Message Modifications
> 
> > Dave suggested the following text:
> >
> >   "Message modification can affect the validity of an existing message
> >    signature, such as by DKIM [DKIM], PGP [RFC4880], and can render the
> >    signature invalid.  This, in turn, can affect message handling by later
> >    receivers, such as filtering engines that consider the presence or
> >    absence of a signature"
> 
> And I think that text is good.  I support changing the text to this,
> and telling Russ that the WG is strongly in favour of having this in
> there.  (And I'm not in favour of SM's suggested change to it.)

Concur on all points.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email