[ietf-dkim] Wrong Discussion - was Why mailing lists should strip DKIM signatures
MH Michael Hammer (5304)
MHammer at ag.com
Tue Apr 27 08:55:59 PDT 2010
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:13 AM
> To: John Levine
> Cc: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Wrong Discussion - was Why mailing lists
> strip DKIM signatures
> On 04/27/2010 08:06 AM, John Levine wrote:
> >>> Another real question, equally important: who is actually writing
> >> Is it something that would make sense to add to the Development,
> >> Deployment and Operations document?
> > It would probably be better to keep it separate, since it's likely
> > be more contentious than everything else in that document combined.
> > Oh, and I'll write it, just not this week.
> I'd suggest that the author should be outside of the set of
I would suggest several authors.
While I appreciate and respect John's perspective, I think there are
other cases besides phishing which he has not considered.
Misinformation and damage to reputation are two that come to mind. The
fact that a domain (or author within a domain) wishes to protect
themselves by signing what they write should not be discounted. This
should be true even (or particularly) when what they write or emit
passes through a mail list.
I get the sense that some discount what is communicated to/through a
list compared to what is sent directly. I'm not sure why that is so.
More information about the ietf-dkim