On May 10, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > This looks good. Ok to become a WG document
+1 > Pity we may need a separate document for "forwarding" or can this notion be > included in the current document? It's complex enough with all the different ways that MLM-style remailing can be implemented. Single-address forwarding is clearly related to /some/ of those methods, but not all, so I think confusion would be even more certain if we included that too. > Also can parts be more normative than informational? ie what a MLM MUST do > when supporting DKIM. That brings up the strange question of what "supporting DKIM" is. I think we could write normative language for what MLM software MUST NOT do if it wants to pass DKIM-signed messages through unscathed. We could also write normative language for what MLM software MUST do if it wants to sign the messages itself (that's pretty obvious.) But it's all the places in between that get complicated -- particularly when MLM developers are (in my experience) notoriously slow to add features. -- J.D. Falk <[email protected]> Return Path Inc _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
