On 10/8/09 12:48 PM, J.D. Falk wrote: > 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. > > +1 > >> 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. > > +1 > > Whoever wants to take on this project should feel free to borrow from the > article I wrote in June: > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/dkim_for_discussion_lists/
J.D. This approach still leaves problems related to ADSP policy restrictions running afoul with any mailing-list that modifies (flattens) message formats to ensure consistent presentation. Since many readers of these lists are likely to prefer consistent formatting, modified subject lines, and subscription links at the end of the message, this is likely to cause DKIM policies to run afoul of mailing-lists when they publish any restrictive ADSP assertion. I have just updated the tpa draft aimed at offering a direct remedy for this problem which does not depend upon receivers knowing which mailings lists to trust, although we are both in the business of offering this advice. :^) http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-otis-dkim-tpa-label-01.txt Version 00 of this draft was poorly defined. I hope the simplified definitions make it a bit more understandable. The off-line feedback was appreciated. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
