[ietf-dkim] Feedback on draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists for discussion
ietf-dkim at kitterman.com
Mon Aug 2 12:09:38 PDT 2010
On Monday, August 02, 2010 02:39:05 pm Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 08/02/2010 11:21 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think this is worth considering. In discussions with one of the
> > of a major open source MLM, he mentioned to me that they've had feature
> > requests over the years to alter From due to privacy/spambot harvesting
> > reasons, so this isn't something that would only serve to mitigate damage
> > due to ADSP.
> Yeahbut... given the inertia how much could we possibly expect? There's
> going to be breakage and hence resistance to this were it a good idea
> (which I'm not sure of). Suppose only 10% by volume of lists did this,
> would it still be a net benefit?
I don't think there are any solutions to ADSP and MLMs that are unadulterated
good. I think each option has risks and benefits. I think this is one
reasonable approach that may suit some lists and be implemented for some MLMs.
I think it doesn't risk mail loss and is consistent with existing standards.
It does require some change in practices, but I think that's rather the point
of the document.
More information about the ietf-dkim