--On 30 April 2010 08:48:44 -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Macdonald >> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 8:32 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Wrong Discussion - was Why mailing lists >> should strip DKIM signatures >> >> Perhaps poorly chosen words. But I think most understood the intent. >> I'm willing to go from a world where any system can use my From to one >> where only the systems I say can. And that means changes. > > It has been pointed out that MLM implementers have even more inertia than > your average MTA implementer. Although many header fields have been > invented specifically for the purpose of aiding list management (your > List-Id: and List-Unsubscribe:, not to mention Sender:), their adoption > has not exactly been universal. > > So you might be gung ho for big changes that will make things better, but > we need to accept the fact that a substantial portion of the installed > base won't change, at least not soon, and we can't ignore them. Any BCP > we produce will have to take that into account. > That's fine. "Best Current Practice", except when "Best" is redundant, is not universal. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
