On 4/27/2015 2:44 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
So it seems to me the points of contention here are:
1) Is the MLM violation of the SHOULD NOT cited above the kind of
violation that we accept based on how "SHOULD NOT" is defined in
RFC2119? It seems to me that it is, especially given how long they've
been doing it without objection (until now). One could argue they've
been "getting away with it" for too long, but we can't change history.
For the record, there was objection in DKIM-WG and in particular cited
with the deployment guide and also with the requirement guide where
the integration conflicts was obvious.
2) Is the MLM emitting a new message? I would agree with Michael and
contend that it is if there have been any content changes at all, in
the same way that someone making a compilation of a series of
independent works (a "mix tape") owns the copyright on the mix, though
not on the original material. Now, MLMs do that with digests already
-- who else could one legitimately put in the From of a digest? -- but
typically not for resent messages.
Its not a new author message. It is how the MLM massages the
submission for redistribute for an One to Many groupware logic. MLM is
technically an Email Kludge for an electronic messaging conferencing
system. It is at best a "repackaged" message. But its not a "new"
message per se that would warrant any kind of idea for rewriting the
Mail Infrastructure persistent and consistent "From" field. Reply-ID
is already on "iffy" grounds but it was done, pointing the mail back
to the list in the name of reducing unintentional direct messages in
legacy MUAs with layman users doing the most naturally thing. List-ID
were still not widely adopted or around the time.
A Digest would be a new message -- because not one list author created
it. The MLM created it.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
