[ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02 review
MH Michael Hammer (5304)
MHammer at ag.com
Mon Sep 13 07:19:05 PDT 2010
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 10:11 AM
> To: Charles Lindsey
> Cc: DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02 review
> > What ADSP users want is irrelevant. This is about what MLMs want
> > most likely to ensure that submitted messages reach the whole of
> > list without problems).
> Right. The easiest way to do so, assuming you believe that enough
> will use ADSP to matter, is to discard incoming messages with ADSP
> settings that can cause trouble. If they say their mail is
> take them at their word and discard it.
I agree that if a signing domain publishes discardable then the MLM
should discard it. Let's apply a little logic here. The types of
mailstreams that have been identified as being suitable candidates for
ADSP discardable have always been ones that would not be appropriate
(bank notifications, etc) for passing through MLMs in the first place.
While an ecard might be sent to all the members of a list, this is
enough of a corner case that if the domain publishes discardable then
that message should be discarded even though it would otherwise be
If a domain publishing ADSP discardable has not gotten control of their
mailstreams then all I can say is "Darwin was right".
> > Clearly, mailing lists that do things to the From: SHOULD (even
> > sign, and any RFC documenting my proposal would include that.
> Hmmn. Since you apparently believe this is a valuable and useful
> proposal, could you remind us why, exactly, you're not writing it?
> Writing I-Ds isn't hard. Lots of us do it all the time.
I would have to see the details of the draft before commenting on
whether it makes sense.
More information about the ietf-dkim