List traffic is one of the few cases where the recipient has affirmatively opted in to receive it.
I agree with Mark, mail agents should be processing identified list traffic in a very different manner to ordinary unsolicited traffic. We need to define rules for a compliant mailer so mailing list authors know what to code to. But the mailing lists that are going to bite us are the legacy ones that are not in compliance. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Delany > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:59 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM and mailing lists > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:38:53PM +0100, Eliot Lear allegedly wrote: > > Mark Delany wrote: > > > Given the religion, I wonder whether both are entirely reasonable > > > and leave the choice to the particular list implementor. > > > > > > > I know I don't want to take on the argument of which is > reasonable so > > applying guidance for both and for clients in the face of both is > > important. Particularly for whether or not you protect the Subject > > line and how at all to limit length, and or resign. There are some > > serious UI issues there. > > The very early thinking back at DK-00 was that a > participating list might sign List-ID. The idea being that > List traffic is distinctly different and that a verifier/UA > might sensibly treat such traffic differently in the presence > of a List-ID. Subsequent revisions went down the path of > generalizing that to Sender. > > In retrospect, I'm not sure I'm a fan of that generalization > as List traffic is so different that it need not be squeezed > into a generalized category that otherwise is almost > completely absent in real-life traffic. > > > Mark. > _______________________________________________ > ietf-dkim mailing list > http://dkim.org > > _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
