On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:26:52 -0700 (PDT) Michael Deutschmann <[email protected]> wrote: >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*.
Except that the ADSP RFC is already published and so it is what it is. It is definitely premature to crack ADSP open again (of course I thought that about DKIM too). Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
