Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM and EAI

From: "John R. Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 9 Feb 2018 17:02:00 -0500

> If I may once again change the topic for a moment ...

> 	https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-appsarea-eaiauth/

I pushed out a new version that says something about SPF macros, 
attempting to say that if you try to expand a UTF-8 local part, it doesn't 
match anything.  I figure this is consistent with what would happen if 
your local part was something like foo..bar which won't match anything 
either.

I would appreciate if people would take a look and see if anything seems 
obviously wrong.  I'm doing some EAI whitepapery things for ICANN and it 
would be nice if, for a change, the advice they offer matches reality.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 17:57:16 -0500

> would be nice if, for a change, the advice they offer matches reality.

Thanks.  I think that's a reasonable resolution of the SPF macro issue that I 
raised.  Not ideal, in theory, but plenty good enough for the corner case it 
is.

Does this need to update RFC 7208 since there are SPF related MUST 
requirements?

Scott K

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 9 Feb 2018 18:22:18 -0500

>Does this need to update RFC 7208 since there are SPF related MUST 

I would think so, also 6376, 7489, 7601 since it updates DKIM, DMARC, and A-R specs.

R's,
John

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 23:13:04 -0800

> I would think so, also 6376, 7489, 7601 since it updates DKIM, DMARC, and

Since 7601bis is now a live DMARC WG document, you might want to make some
suggestions over there since 7601 will be obsoleted.

-MSK