J D Falk wrote:
Have the same concerns been raised in other WGs for the possibility that somebody might hack into an IMAP server and modify messages there?
I also pointed out that if "buggy implementations" should be mentioned in my security considerations, then every RFC going through the directorate will have to say the same thing. It's a fairly ubiquitous problem.
_______________________________________________NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Previous by Date: | Re: [mail-vet-discuss] secdir review ofdraft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-11.txt (fwd), Murray S. Kucherawy |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [mail-vet-discuss] secdir review of draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-11.txt (fwd), Murray S. Kucherawy |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [mail-vet-discuss] secdir review ofdraft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-11.txt (fwd), Dave Crocker |
Next by Thread: | Re: [mail-vet-discuss] secdir review ofdraft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-11.txt (fwd), Murray S. Kucherawy |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |