Presumably a last message of mine. Without any personal insult meant i wanted to complain on the the initial sentence
Mailing-lists have long complicated email authentication. And this echoes IETF documents written a decade and longer ago (last week i looked on my local ones and i think as early as 2011). This is the stance ever since. And i always felt, and always said in public, that it is quite the opposite. It is not and has never been despite the repetitions that mailing-lists break email authentication, but quite the opposite, it is that the way that authentication was implemented broke mailing-lists, which struggle ever since. You are free to call that bullshit, but i call the above, given all the struggle that so many mailing-lists face for more than a decade, and increasing, insolent. Like i did. If the stance would change to something like saying that "operational needs required a timely solution for authentication that unfortunately degraded mailing-list operators" then that would surely sound better. Just to reiterate: the basic principle in use for email for so many years, "[alias-]forwarding" (and even i have two for only this account, CPAN and sourceforge, i am sure many active young people which work at so-and-so-many projects, and whatever, have much much more), as well as mailing-lists which tag subject lines, and insert (headers and) footers, were forcefully neglected for, in reflection, mysterious reasons, .. so i can tell *where* here the bullshit is, and who produced it. I would, if i could, strongly urge to place the burden on fixing DKIM onto DKIM, so that only DKIM has to be implemented and used everywhere (because, mind you, many do _nothing_ such, and only try to get out of the way of IETF outcome, by removing subject tags, footers, and whatever). You gain a cryptographically verifieable path from sender to receiver, and _finally_ mailing-list software is enabled to *do* anything to help authentication. Now i must admit that for copying out the above sentence, via browser, i saw the word "Prior" and that reminded me of something that Mr. Vesely said, and that, in turn, let me read some more sentences of that draft. Not more, i do not like ARC. I think the DKIM workout would work out (whatever other problems that would entail), possibly with the addition that whitespace in the base64 (encoding headers) shall be ignored so that lines can easily be broken (seems to be a deficit in the standard that artificial whitespace can be introduced, ie, RFC 5322); 'just realized that since the nmh MUA had M-L [sic] traffic on that issue (of overlong lines). (I do not need to see my name on that btw. My approach is better :)) --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
