[ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-04.txt

[Murray S. Kucherawy]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 8:37 AM
> To: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-04.txt
> 
> I have two issues:
> 
> *scope*
> Apparently, there is consensus that "Discussion lists and broadcast
> lists are not the same thing" [WV].  Section 3.2 exemplifies
> newsletters and bulk marketing mail as "authoring" MLM modes.  In
> facts, most of the advice covers mailing lists proper.  Should
> ESP-lists be removed from the I-D entirely, e.g. by saying they are
> not covered right after their definition?
> 
> [WV] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2010q3/014474.html

Section 3.2 says:

   Much of this document focuses on the resending class of MLM as it has
   the most direct conflict operationally with DKIM.

Do we need to be more forceful than that?

> *re-signing*
> After recent discussions, it seems inadvisable that "A DKIM-aware
> resending MLM is encouraged to sign the entire message".  In
> particular, section 5.7 may suggest that fields that had not been
> signed by the author domain neither be signed by the MLM, unless the
> MLM itself introduced or modified them.

That's not a bad idea.  Any support or objections from others?

> Generic advice, such as the possibility of dropping unsigned fields,
> will probably be added to 4871bis.  It may or may not be worth
> repeating it here.

I hadn't seen any discussion about that for 4871bis.  Can you point me to such a posting?