On 10 Oct 2009, John Levine wrote: > People who contribute to mailing lists shouldn't say dkim=all. We > argued this ad nauseam when we were hammering out ADSP, it shouldn't > come as a surprise to anyone.
I'm an outsider delurking to say: If this is indeed the official semantics of the protocol, then I would petition to add a "dkim=except-mlist" policy. Which means "I sign everything that leaves my bailiwick, but may post to signature-breaking MLs." I would find the distinction between this and "unknown" to be useful information when evaluating incoming mail. I whitelist all mailing list traffic -- I have to, because I've programmed my mailserver to reject Bcc traffic otherwise. *I* would be able to treat except-mlist as all. But for an ISP that doesn't know its users well, except-mlist = unknown. ---- Michael Deutschmann <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
