Paul Hoffman wrote: > At 8:35 AM -0800 3/28/06, Jim Fenton wrote: >> Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> At 6:57 AM -0800 3/28/06, Michael Thomas wrote: >>>> So I'll ask: is there anybody out there who thinks that the current >>>> set of mechanisms in -allman-01 is insufficient and/or wrong for >>>> dealing >>>> with this problem? >>> >>> Yes (insufficient). The current proposal for allowing signers to only >>> have to compute the hash once for large message bodies that will be >>> sent out numerous times (such as in a mailing list) seems like an >>> improvement. >> IMO (In My Observations), most mailing lists don't need this feature >> because they send the same message, body and headers, to all recipients >> so the signature is the same even under the allman-01 mechanism. I get >> a few messages with customized To: addresses, but most of them have >> customized body content as well. >> >> Paul, do any of the mailing lists you administer send the same body with >> different headers to different subscribers? > > No, but that's not the point. > > The term "mailing list" can mean discussion lists like the one we are > on, and it can also mean one-way lists, like the ones that many > commercial organizations use to talk to their customers. The latter > type often used customized bodies, customized headers, or both. We > don't get as much of that now as we should because wanted commercial > email often looks like spam. If the DKIM protocol can support one-way > mailing lists better than -allman-01, it should. Thanks for clarifying. So really this helps a subset of mailing lists that customizes the headers but not the bodies.
-Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
