[ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
michael at talamasca.ocis.net
Thu May 20 04:25:32 PDT 2010
On Wed, 19 May 2010, MH Michael Hammer wrote:
> +1. The current discussion was supposed to be about BCP. I agree with
> Stephen with the caveat that if the group thinks re-opening ADSP
> discussion is important then include it in the re-charter. Personally
> I'd like to wait until we hear some numbers about ADSP deployment and
Well, if RFC 5617 (current official ADSP) is to be regarded as engraved
in stone, writing a list BCP seems trivial to me:
There's just two options:
1. Must take ownership of the header From: -- change it to something in
the list operator's domain.
2. Should DKIM-sign the outgoing message.
3. Should only accept mails that pass DKIM/ADSP validation, treating
"all" as what I call "rejectable". (List input mailboxes don't need to
worry about whether "all" means "rejectable" or "except-mlist", because
lists don't subscribe to lists).
1. Must relay message verbatim. No subject tags, disclaimers, or "how
to unsubscribe" footers. But new headers above the DKIM signature can
2. Must only accept mails that pass DKIM/ADSP validation, again treating
"all" as my "rejectable".
After selecting an alternative, breaking any of its musts will risk mails
getting blocked, so long as anyone publishes dkim=all (regardless of what
they *mean*), and anyone interprets dkim=all as my "rejectable".
Neither sounds that palatable to list operators. Which one is
mipassoc.org going to use?
---- Michael Deutschmann <michael at talamasca.ocis.net>
More information about the ietf-dkim