On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:37:50 +0100, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The use of the DKIM l=, z= and x= features provide a means for >> recipients to separately evaluate DKIM signatures without reliance on >> intermediary assessors. In addition, the A-R header does not capture >> the IP address when assessing path registration protocols, which means >> that safe recipient reassessment might only be possible in the case of >> DKIM or reverse DNS. >> [...] > > Could we please not re-re-re-rehash these A-R issues on ietf-dkim? They > were already covered on mail-vet-discuss more times than I can count. > The archives of that list are public in case anyone really needs to go > through them all again. Actually, this discussion is a spin-off of the thread on the usefulness of the l= tag, which is definitely on topic for this group. What I think it makes clear that we are in serious need of some document to provide Best Practice for how mailing list expanders should handle DKIM, and I think that is something that this WG needs to take on board. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: [email protected] snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
