[ietf-dkim] Proposed changes to MLM draft

[Jeff Macdonald]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk at cloudmark.com> wrote:
> I’d like some help tackling the next version of the MLM draft.  People seem
> to have varying ideas about what should be removed and perhaps appear in
> other documents now.  I need some consensus on a direction in which to
> proceed.
>
>
>
> So can I please get some +1s/-1s on each of the following:
>
>
>
> (1) Split the document into three documents: A DKIM MLM BCP that discusses
> signing and verifying in the context of MLMs with no value-add items
> addressed, a DKIM MLM Informational that discusses possible value-add
> enhancements to MLMs in the DKIM world, and a non-WG BCP about mailing lists
> irrespective of DKIM (Dave’s proposal);

-1. Or 0. I'd have to see the resulting docs. Since MLM deal with
individuals, I don't understand how DKIM helps here in terms of
verification. If the goal is to somehow be able to verify users via
DKIM, I don't see how that is MLM specific.

> (2) Tear out everything having to do with making author signatures survive
> list relaying, dropping all that text altogether,

+1 I think. Again, I'd have to see the resulting draft. I'll revisit
this tomorrow and see what it looks like.

> point people at S/MIME or PGP (John’s proposal);

-1. No need to mention it. But I agree with John that if people want
signatures to survive MLM, then DKIM isn't it.


-- 
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA