On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Barry wrote: > My point, Michael, is that it doesn't matter what we "decide" in the > working group. As John pointed out, what's relevant is not that he
I'd disagree. All we need is an explicit statement in an RFC as to which policy is "correct" in the common case that the sender is very confident that all non-mailing-list mail will have an unbroken signature, but cannot make any promises otherwise. Once it is explicit, we won't have to worry about private interpretations. If you really want to close this, I can't stop you. I just think publishing an "except-mlist" policy to cover this common case, or at least clarifying which of the existing policies to use, would have been low-hanging fruit allowing us to improve the quality and quantity of ADSP deployment. But for now, once Exim 4.70 is released, giving me the ability to actually participate in DKIM, I shall be publishing a dkim=unknown record. (If you build "except-mlist", I will come...) ---- Michael Deutschmann <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
