Barry Leiba wrote:
> I'm not in favour of complicating the protocol, when we can do what we > want to do with what's there. I'd really need to see significant new > use cases to drive any major change here. DKIM implementation is already complex and confusing. The goal of policy was to make it protocol consistent, "easier" and give it a real purpose. This isn't about "use cases" but business methodologies - allowing for opened ended signing "passthru" machines vs having author domain controls over that signing process. > On the other hand, I'd see nothing wrong if someone should want to > write a draft about mailing-list considerations, and propose it as a > working group item. But I'd want to see it as a draft that we can > review, not just as a few ideas in an email message. Barry, there has been drafts written on Mailing List Server (MLS) considerations. But it all a moot point if RFC 5617 will not be honored by the MLS. -- HLS _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
