[ietf-dkim] list vs contributor signatures, was Wrong Discussion
mike at mtcc.com
Thu Apr 29 11:03:57 PDT 2010
On 04/29/2010 10:47 AM, Al Iverson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Michael Thomas<mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>> On 04/29/2010 10:23 AM, Al Iverson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:58 AM, McDowell, Brett<bmcdowell at paypal.com>
>>>> On Apr 28, 2010, at 2:11 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>>>>> Your proposal that MLM remove Signatures would cause restrictive
>>>>>> policies to fail.
>>>> Which is why I oppose this proposal.
>>> As John Levine mentioned previously, your own posts to this list fail
>>> authentication and end up in many of our spam folders because of
>>> Paypal's SPF policy. I'm not against strong authentication policies --
>>> but I'm wondering how you personally expect to be able to post to
>>> mailing lists without acceptance of this proposal? The status quo
>>> interferes with your ability currently, and broader adoption of
>>> authentication on the receiving side will only make it worse.
>> The solution to a misconfigured SPF/ADSP record is for every receiver to
>> patch it up post-hoc?
> I did not say that.
Then what did you say? If somebody's SPF/ADSP record is set up such that it
fails through lists and they want their users to be able to use lists, they
should change their SPF/ADSP record to reflect their actual sending practices.
Putting the burden on mailing lists and everybody else to try to figure out
what they *really* meant makes absolutely no sense.
>> That makes absolutely no sense.
> Your apparent anger makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion.
Your amateur psychology pronouncements are not appropriate for this list.
More information about the ietf-dkim