[ietf-dkim] Review of: draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-06

[John R. Levine]

>>>> {{ Is this describing anything different than would/should take place for mail
>>>> that did NOT go througha list?  The text seems to be describing a special case
>>>> but in fact it isn't.  It's just an ADSP failure. }}
>>
>> The alternative suggestion is that if it has a sufficiently credible
>> signature, accept it and forget about ADSP.  See above-mentioned swamp.
>
> I guess you'd want to see evidence (signed by the credible MLM) that the
> message had arrived at the list with a good signature.

As I said in the sentence you quoted, no, I don't.

Why is it so important to second guess the list software? I've been using 
mailing lists for over thirty years, and I've never had any interest in
trying to mechanically determine whether I agree with the list manager's 
selection of messages.  In cases where it's wrong, the fix is to fix the 
list manager, not to add an extra layer of sorting just about list mail.

I've been asking for at least a year why people think it's important to 
see the incoming signatures on list mail, and the answer has always boiled 
down to, well on some lists we can, then going off into the woods with 
implausible changes to MLM software.  If this were important, why don't we 
demand that they preserve S/MIME signatures, too?


Regards,
John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly