Subject: [ietf-dkim] New issue: Definition of "DKIM Signer Complete"

From: Arvel Hathcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:17:00 -0500

In req-01 the definition for "DKIM signer complete" is:

"the state where the domain holder believes that all legitimate mail purportedly from the domain was sent with a valid DKIM signature."

Shouldn't this be:

"the state where the domain holder believes that all legitimate mail purportedly from the domain was sent with a valid First Party DKIM signature."?

-- 
Arvel Hathcock
CEO, Alt-N Technologies
http://www.altn.com

--------------------------------------------------------------
Alt-N Technologies celebrates 10 years in business!
http://www.altn.com/press/press_release.asp/ReleaseID/174
--------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:04:42 -0700

On Sep 21, 2006, at 7:17 AM, Arvel Hathcock wrote:

> "the state where the domain holder believes that all legitimate  
> mail purportedly from the domain was sent with a valid DKIM  
> signature."
>
> Shouldn't this be:
>
> "the state where the domain holder believes that all legitimate  
> mail purportedly from the domain was sent with a valid First Party  
> DKIM signature."?

When policy allows for an association to be made to other domains,  
then this definition would be constraining that choice.

Allow policy to define what is a valid signature for a particular  
email-address field or parameter.

-Doug

---

From: Damon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:12:27 -0400

> email-address field or parameter.

+1

Note: Try as I might, I was not able to get logged in. Sorry I missed
this session.

Regards,
Damon

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:18:05 +0100

> Note: Try as I might, I was not able to get logged in. Sorry I missed

That makes two. Were there others that tried but couldn't get in?

And can those who'd like to take part in this please check it out
during the week - the jabber room's always there. Just enter the
room type something and make sure it shows up on the log file a
few minutes later.

Thanks,
Stephen.

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Sep 2006 16:59:53 -0000

>That makes two. Were there others that tried but couldn't get in?

jabber.org was definitely down, but I had no trouble connecting using
my gmail account.  (Gmail chat is jabber, for anyone who didn't know.)

R's,
John

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:59:20 -0700

> my gmail account.  (Gmail chat is jabber, for anyone who didn't know.)

Does this require the Google Talk client?

The Adium client does not seems to always allow auto registration but  
instead assumes it is already registered.  This may be due to a  
corporate firewall issue however.  Even once a server was found that  
would register a new account (and was noted as allowing group chat),   
502 server errors were reported when attempting to connect to the  
room server.  This is not the first time Jabber has failed, and not  
just with this group.  It seems doubtful that Jabber should be  
trusted at this time.

If the key element of Jabber is to see a rapid display of +++ and  
---, then simply call for votes on the reflector.  It is ridiculous  
for someone say on a jabber session "Convince me otherwise".  A list  
should allow better responses.  The issue really seems not wanting to  
read.  This is where threads should be used.

-Doug

---

From: John L <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:25:37 -0400 (EDT)

> Does this require the Google Talk client?

No, I use Gaim.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 23:19:09 +0100

Douglas Otis wrote:
> 502 server errors were reported when attempting to connect to the room 
> server.  This is not the first time Jabber has failed, and not just with 
> this group.  It seems doubtful that Jabber should be trusted at this time.

Compared to in the spring? I still don't see why.

> If the key element of Jabber is to see a rapid display of +++ and ---, 
> then simply call for votes on the reflector.  

Disagree. If you look at the logs, you'll see a lot of "no, I meant
<<foo>>" preceeding any such.

 > It is ridiculous for
> someone say on a jabber session "Convince me otherwise".  A list should 
> allow better responses.  The issue really seems not wanting to read.  
> This is where threads should be used.

If the WG don't want to use jabber, then of course, that's fine.

Speaking personally, I believe the experience last time was very
positive, both in terms of time-to-resolve issues and in terms of
more polite and productive interactions. So, I'm all for continuing
with jabber, but if I hear sufficient objections then of course
I'm entirely willing to try help get rough consensus via the mailing
list. (OTOH, if folks find the jabbering productive, then saying
that is also useful.)

Stephen.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 01:19:54 +0200

> Does this require the Google Talk client?

No, see <http://www.google.com/talk/otherclients.html>
Looking for anything working on my box I know those URLs ;-)

We could petition the tools team to build a gateway to
something that works (= no TLS).

Frank