On Apr 26, 2010, at 10:05 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > I think we are having the wrong discussion. The real question is: > > "What are appropriate practices for mailing lists in handling DKIM > signed mail?"
Agreed. >From my perspective, I'd like to enable (not mandate or expect universal >compliance with) the deployment scenario where the sender's DKIM signature is >either maintained without adulteration or "proxied" by the list so the >transient trust can be carried through the mailing list intermediary to the >destination (per Murray's note which I'm also going to respond to). That's my >use case. By sharing this use case I'm not trying to deprecate or undermine >John Levine's original use case. But there is a diversity of >valid/appropriate behavior by mailing lists vis-a-vis DKIM that we need to >consider (which is why I'm so pleased to see Mike H. take our discussion in >this direction). -- Brett _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
