[ietf-dkim] Feedback on draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists for discussion
johnl at iecc.com
Sun Aug 1 15:50:47 PDT 2010
>a) Section 5.1 currently advocates a warning to new subscribers to an
>MLM with a highly restrictive ADSP policy. Should this be stronger,
>such as "a warning is advised, and full denial should be considered"?
Yes, since the damage from ADSP can affect other subscribers.
>b) Would it be a good idea to suggest MLM implementers make signing
>of submissions into a user-configurable option? ...
Since we don't have any experience, I don't think we should be telling
list managers how to verify submissions. The text in 5.2 and 5.3
looks fine to me.
> I think there was some text in there already about the idea of
>bifurcating the list's output into a signed stream and an unsigned
What a bad idea. The list's output is one mail stream, as section 5.6
says. The current language looks correct to me.
More information about the ietf-dkim