[ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists annex MUA considerations
iane at sussex.ac.uk
Wed Aug 18 08:21:08 PDT 2010
--On 17 August 2010 19:14:30 +0000 John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
>> I'm trying to get the same goal by recommending adding some
>> non-artisicly specified form of a "list: mlm.example" display so its
>> more evident to the user without percentage hacks.
> I must be missing something. What does this have to do with DKIM?
> If this were important, why don't MUAs look for the already standard
> List-ID header, regardless of whether it's signed? In my experience,
> nearly all of the mail that makes it through existing spam filters and
> has a List-ID header is really from a list.
Yes, I think that's my experience too: nearly all. Unfortunately, I had to
disable a filter which would file an email in lists/listname and
automatically create the mailbox if necessary. I ended up with more
mailboxes created by spam than by genuine list emails.
So, while most messages with a list-id header were genuine, most distinct
list-ids that I saw were not.
I guess it would be nice if list servers could use OAuth to authenticate my
subscription requests against my mail infrastructure, and then my servers
would recognise and record the request. Then it could treat messages from
the list with a higher trust level, and -for example- file them accordingly.
IT Services, University of Sussex
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
More information about the ietf-dkim