> > The point is that the WG has to be able to make changes to DKIM and to > > address valid technical issues in DKIM. Failure of DKIM to > > interoperate with mailing lists is a bona fide technical issue, one > > which IMHO would block it from becoming Proposed Standard. > > > > Now having said that, I'd very much like to see a set of guidelines for > > mailing lists that discouraged munging of originator-supplied content. > > But I think we're going to be stuck with subject munging for a while. > > So this is new to you; it's been discussed to death before -- > and even on the MASS list.
This is a process issue. Understanding gained in the previous discussion can inform the WG discussion but cannot preempt discussion of this issue by the WG - and certainly cannot be used to justify a technical flaw in DKIM. I bring it up now because it might relate to a discussion about DKIM's charter. > PS: as I said, take a look at l= and z= and their implications > for mailing lists. IMHO, these are a useful start, but I think they need work. For example, the MUST NOT prohibition against verifiers using the z= field seems a bit overstated. Keith _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
