On 7/4/12 12:32 AM, "Franck Martin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Dave Crocker" <[email protected]> >> To: "Franck Martin" <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 8:39:01 PM >> Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] Mailing lists support for DMARC >> >> >> On 7/3/2012 6:57 PM, Franck Martin wrote: >> > To answer a few questions >> > >> > Not planning to change any standard, just proposing to adapt a well >> > know MLM to the current authentication standard >> >> In fact, your code makes some significant assumptions about what is >> acceptable behavior by mailing lists. >> >> As I said, this sort of thing is best discussed in terms of its >> concepts, distinct form its code. > >That's not agile We're not releasing competitive product here. This kind of thing needs to be specified as well as implemented. >>Although a logical choice, this seems questionable in practice to me. >> >> 1. Messing with Reply-To has always been problematic and there are no >> fully accepted practices. I believe it remains controversial, with >> no >> widespread 'rough consensus', in spite of various widespread >> practices. > >self contradictory statement How so? >>Worse, I really can't tell what the goal is here. Is it to have a >> signature by the mailing list be made valid for DMARC, at the expense >> of >> violating the From: field? >> > >Not trying to solve a theoretical problem but a practical one You have to do both for this kind of work. >>d/ >> >> ps. it occurred to me that i don't know what 'test' mailing list was >> being referred to earlier. >> > >in true ietf fashion I would say: read the archives :P In even truer IETF fashion: Please send text for the spec. -MSK > _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
