On Oct 16, 2009, at 6:33 AM, Michael Deutschmann wrote: > I'd like to more emphatically state the case for adding a > "dkim=except-mlist" policy to ADSP. It will soon become a practical > issue for me, since my mailserver software (Exim) is going to support > DKIM in its next version. > > Without it, I'd have to use "dkim=unknown", which is effectively no > ADSP > at all. > > To review, "dkim=except-mlist" would mean: > > I sign everything leaving my bailiwick, but may post to mailing lists > that break the signature. You are *on your own* in telling the > difference between mailing list mail (which may be good despite a > broken signature) and directly sent mail (that is always signed). If > you can't tell, then treat as dkim=unknown (ie: assume a message is > ML traffic unless you know otherwise.). > > (Incidentally, anyone have a better name for this policy?)
dkim=all. dkim=all says that you sign all mail you send, and nothing more. The difference between that and what you write above for a receiver is nil, I think. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
