> 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.
The RFC already says what to do, and the "except-mlist" proposal seems to me indistinguishable from "all", as stated in the RFC. The point isn't what's in the documents, but what actually happens in the implementations (given that we have no control over what verifiers do, beyond what the spec says). And we don't know that yet. > If you really want to close this, I can't stop you. It's not a question of what I want, but what the consensus of the working group is. If there's consensus in the working group that we need to discuss this further and work on an "except-mlist" option, I'll put that in the charter. I don't see consensus for it yet, but I can certainly be convinced. Though not by further argument from you -- I already know and respect your view on it. We'd need to see support from others. Barry, as chair _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
