>If I'm running a mailing list and I get a piece of signed mail, I'm >certainly not removing its signature. The signer's reputation should >suffer if people complain, or benefit in the absence of a complaint.
Well, gee, in that case since I don't control or even know the way you manage your lists, I don't dare sign anything I send you. If you (the generic you, not Murray) start to do a lousy job of managing your lists, why is that your subscribers' problem? >Even without thinking of the FBL issues, I would want a reputation >systems to be fully informed about a candidate system rather than >only partially informed. Me too. Mail from the list is the responsibility of the list. QED and all that. >I spoke to a couple of people about this in Anaheim: A way of using >DKIM and Auth-Results to establish a definite chain of custody of a >message would be highly useful. Hmmn. Was this in the context of mailing lists, or in general? When I've asked for examples of how this would be useful for list subscribers, all I've heard is an implausible example of a list that is so poorly managed that it's full of spam, and the list owner isn't willing to do anything about it, but for some reason people want to subscribe to it anyway. I could see how a chain of custody would be useful for something like a courtesy forward that downcoded MIME from 8bit to base64, or one that added a tag or advertisement to mail as it went through. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
