[ietf-dkim] Straw poll results
Rolf E. Sonneveld
R.E.Sonneveld at sonnection.nl
Mon Aug 9 14:38:18 PDT 2010
Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Monday, August 09, 2010 04:11:57 pm John R. Levine wrote:
>>> Why do you simplify handling of list mail to sorting and filtering,
>>> ignoring two other important list handling activities:
>>> 1. reading mail
>>> 2. responding to mail
>> Well, OK. Can you offer some non-hypothetical situations where you would
>> read or respond to list mail differently if there were extra assurance on
>> identity of the list contributor?
>> Or to put it another way, if someone has put an S/MIME signature on a
>> messsage sent through a list, does that affect the way you respond?
> It's not at all clear to me that the answer to that question is in any way
> related to the work of the working group. What would we design differently if
> the answer was yes (or no)?
Let me try to explain. If the identity of the list contributor is of any
value to the receiver of an MLM-distributed message, then it is
important to (try to) preserve the original DKIM signature across an MLM
redistribution of the message (if at all possible). If however the
identity of the list contributor is of no value whatsoever, we should
not bother about preserving the original DKIM signature.
More information about the ietf-dkim