[ietf-dkim] Case for ADSP "dkim=except-mlist"

[Steve Atkins]

On Oct 16, 2009, at 6:33 AM, Michael Deutschmann wrote:

> I'd like to more emphatically state the case for adding a
> "dkim=except-mlist" policy to ADSP.  It will soon become a practical
> issue for me, since my mailserver software (Exim) is going to support
> DKIM in its next version.
>
> Without it, I'd have to use "dkim=unknown", which is effectively no  
> ADSP
> at all.
>
> To review, "dkim=except-mlist" would mean:
>
> I sign everything leaving my bailiwick, but may post to mailing lists
> that break the signature.  You are *on your own* in telling the
> difference between mailing list mail (which may be good despite a
> broken signature) and directly sent mail (that is always signed).  If
> you can't tell, then treat as dkim=unknown (ie: assume a message is
> ML traffic unless you know otherwise.).
>
> (Incidentally, anyone have a better name for this policy?)

dkim=all.

dkim=all says that you sign all mail you send, and nothing more. The
difference between that and what you write above for a receiver is
nil, I think.

Cheers,
  Steve