Hi Dave & John, I read both of you as actually agreeing in principle. My issue was whether a signature would confer more authority upon a message than perhaps it deserved, and how would an MLM behave in terms of its incentives. In thinking about this, I'd have to say that you're both right, that either the MLM is taking responsibility for the message or it is not. There may yet be a grey area for very sophisticated or experimental MLMs (like "Hmm... SpamAssassin medium score; maybe let it through but don't sign"), but then they don't need a BCP; we need them to publish the results of the experiment ;-)
The only thing that leaves are non-participant MLMs and there really isn't much to be done with them. Eliot On 5/22/10 7:50 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > On 5/17/2010 10:08 PM, John Levine wrote: >> The signature means that this message really truly >> came from the mailing list > > Actually, DKIM makes no statement about authorship or even actors in the > handling sequence. It merely says that that verified domain is willing to > take > "some" responsibility for the message. > > The more we slip into loose references to authorship or operational origins, > the > more we wind up having to dig ourselves out of semantic mismatches later. > > If there is a desire and need to have the semantic be "came from the mailing > list" then there needs to be a mailing list equivalent to ADSP, which > correlates > a DKIM signature with the domain in a List-ID header field. > > > d/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
