On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Michael Deutschmann wrote: > > 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*. > > Whatever the semantics that you have in mind, the underlying question is who > will adopt it and what is your basis for claiming they will adopt it? The > next > question is whether the answers to the first question justify the considerable > costs of pursuing this suggestion.
At the sender side, dkim=except-mlist would be very attractive if the Levine interpretation of dkim=all stands. No large ISP could deploy the Levine all. But as a practical matter, any organization with DKIM-supporting smarthosts, that already uses SPF's "-all", could deploy dkim=except-mlist at minimal risk. At the receiver side, it's a little less useful, since no means is given to tell whether a message is exempt mailing list traffic or must-be-signed normal mail. Hence big ISPs are forced to accept some false negative risk by treating except-mlist as unknown. However, for people like myself who have whilelisted all incoming mailing lists, except-mlist would be so much more helpful than unknown. ---- Michael Deutschmann <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
