On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Michael Thomas wrote: > On 10/11/2009 02:41 AM, Michael Deutschmann wrote: > > 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." > > No need. That is exactly what the semantics of "all" is. That appears to be a contentious issue.
While I don't think the Hector/Levine interpretation is very useful, I think it would be a sound strategic move to yield to them regarding dkim=all, and instead create our own dkim=except-mlist space where our semantics are in place with *no ambiguity*. ---- Michael Deutschmann <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
