Subject: [ietf-dkim] DKIM issues

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:20:00 +0200

Here are the SSP issues as of today that I have.  If you have more,
please send a note to this mailing list with the subject "New Issue". 
This message is best viewed as HTML.  To view the issue tracker go to
https://rt.psg.com and log in as ietf/ietf.  Then click on dkim on the
right.

Eliot

	

	
	
*1217 <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1217>* 	*SSP: hould we
drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?
<https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1217>* 	open 	dkim 	Nobody 	0

	[email-masked] 	6 months ago 	
	6 months ago 	0
*1356 <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1356>* 	*What is the
purpose of SSP? <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1356>* 	new
dkim 	Nobody 	0

	[email-masked] 	13 hours ago 	
	13 hours ago 	0
*1357 <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1357>* 	*SSP: Clarity
among the usage scenarios
<https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1357>* 	new 	dkim 	Nobody 	0

	[email-masked] 	13 hours ago 	
	13 hours ago 	0
*1358 <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1358>*
*ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.
<https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1358>* 	new 	dkim 	Nobody 	0

	[email-masked] 	9 min ago 	
	9 min ago 	0
*1359 <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1359>*
*ssp-requirements-01 // Outsource First Party Signing concerns extended
<https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1359>* 	new 	dkim 	Nobody 	0

	[email-masked] 	7 min ago 	
	7 min ago 	0
*1360 <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1360>*
*ssp-requirements-01 // Designated Signing Domain Scenario missing
<https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1360>* 	new 	dkim 	Nobody 	0

	[email-masked] 	6 min ago 	
	6 min ago 	0
*1361 <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1361>*
*ssp-requirements-01 // Negative Commentary corrections
<https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1361>* 	new 	dkim 	Nobody 	0

	[email-masked] 	4 min ago 	
	4 min ago 	0
*1362 <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1362>* 	*SSP: Problems
with Scenario 4: Resent
<https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1362>* 	new 	dkim 	Nobody 	0

	[email-masked] 	3 min ago 	
	3 min ago 	0
*1363 <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1363>* 	*SSP: Discover
"requirement" <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1363>* 	new
dkim 	Nobody 	0

	[email-masked] 	1 min ago 	
	1 min ago 	0
*1364 <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1364>* 	*Generic
requirements for SSP, v1.
<https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1364>* 	new 	dkim 	Nobody 	0

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

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:32:44 +0100

Thanks Eliot!
Stephen.

Eliot Lear wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:50:43 +0200

Eliot Lear wrote:
 
> If you have more, please send a note to this mailing list
> with the subject "New Issue".

See <mid:[email-masked]> posted in reply
to the announcement (requrements-01 available) 2006-09-13:
<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.dkim/6034>
<news://news.gmane.org/[email-masked]>

Except from typos that was:

5.4:      Are (1) and (3) in conflict ?  Maybe join (1)+(3).
          I dont's see the MUST in (4), it's a "nice to have".

5.3  (2): IIRC we've identified "never send mail" as a special
          case of "strict", and then just not sending mail, let
          alone signing it.  IMO you can delete this point.

Frank

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:09:14 +0200

Frank,

Thanks.  You caught an error in my request.  The subject merely needs to
contain "New Issue", it doesn't have to have ONLY "New Issue".  In fact
it is better to have something in addition so I can properly title the
issue with the use of my own limited imagination.  The below is now
Issue 1365.

Eliot

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:48:44 -0400

We never send mail, we just sign mail for other people. Keep it

Bill Oxley 
Messaging Engineer 
Cox Communications, Inc. 
Alpharetta GA 
404-847-6397 
[email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Frank Ellermann
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 5:51 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ietf-dkim] New Issue

Frank

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:07:25 -0700

>5.4:      Are (1) and (3) in conflict ?  Maybe join (1)+(3).

That seems like a good idea.

>          alone signing it.  IMO you can delete this point.
I think that this subject has been pretty well beaten to death, but I do
really believe that there is utility to differentiating the two: I'm very
likely to reject a piece of mail out of hand if I receive one with the
ssp set to "I don't send mail". If it was just "strict", I can see reasons
why you might want to be more careful.

       Mike

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:42:14 -0700

> That seems like a good idea.

Please don't.  There is value in having these defined separately.

-Doug

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:05:42 -0700

> Please don't.  There is value in having these defined separately.

Sorry, my mistake.  This is okay.

-Doug

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:33:26 +0200

Michael Thomas wrote:

 [never send mail]
> I think that this subject has been pretty well beaten to
> death

Yes, this could be a question about the purpose of "MUST" in
the requirements:  If SSP proper doesn't saddle this dead
horse it's IMO still okay, not "lacking a required feature".

> If it was just "strict", I can see reasons why you might
> want to be more careful.

Yes, "never send mail" is a "nice to have" feature at least
for SID-unaware senders / receivers ("SID-unaware" includes
most of SPF, just for the records).  Maybe say SHOULD or MAY.

Frank

---

From: Damon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:46:05 -0400

> most of SPF, just for the records).  Maybe say SHOULD or MAY.
 Being an administrator, any time you give me more low hanging fruit
that I don't have to process, the more money you save me. Because this
translates into dollars/yen/rials whatever :) I am all for this
feature.

Regards,
Damon Sauer

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:54:07 +0200

Damon wrote:

 [never send mail = nice to have]
>  Being an administrator, any time you give me more low
> hanging fruit that I don't have to process, the more money
> you save me. Because this translates into dollars/yen/rials
> whatever :) I am all for this feature.

Okay, then let's keep this dubious MUST, and "hope" that
all publishers and receivers know the difference between 
"spf2.0/pra -all", "v=spf1 -all", "SSP never send mail",
and old drafts like Mark's nullmx.

That reduces 1356 (IIRC) to typos, join 5.4 (1)+(3), and
my question why another "nice to have" 5.4 (4) is a MUST.     

Frank