[ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-04.txt
Murray S. Kucherawy
msk at cloudmark.com
Mon Oct 18 10:21:52 PDT 2010
> -----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:
> 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?
> 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?
More information about the ietf-dkim