On 6/1/2010 7:14 AM, Daniel Black wrote: > On Tuesday 01 June 2010 20:47:32 Dave CROCKER wrote: >> On 5/29/2010 2:09 AM, Daniel Black wrote: >>> * email gateways became authenticated >> >> What does this mean? > MSA became authenticated - generally a reduction in open relays.
An MSA is not a gateway[1]. >>> * email providers were pressured to stay off blacklists by complying to a >>> set of practices including no open relays, RFC compliance to not sending >>> bulk spam. >> >> Pressure from whom? How is it manifest/documented? >> From the users that get DSN or the intended recipients harassing their mail > administrators because mail isn't going trough. Recipients complain to their own ISPs, not to senders. >>> MLMs, like mailman, have taken the >>> simple option of stripping DKIM signatures which has also had a positive >>> effect for many list admins. >> >> This implies that DKIM-stripping is an active choice among MLMs. It isn't. > > I was more highlighting there was an active choice in a MLM development to > remove DKIM headers (as a default enabled option I think) and without a > guidance such as what the draft is trying to achieve there could be more. And my claim is that there was no such active choice. >>> section 3.3 Current MLM Effects On Signatures >>> >>> Append at end of subject tags paragraph. >>> >>> "The content of MLM modification of the subject tag is effectively >>> replicating the List-ID value in a way visible to the recipient. This >>> behavior was motivated by a lack of MUA support for displaying List-ID >>> tags. It desirable for MUA to start supporting List-ID tags in order to >>> deprecate this behaviour in MLMs." >> >> This document has no goal nor scope for recommending basic changes to the >> operation of mailing list managers. > > An exploration of DKIM for MLM (ref abstract) sounds like recommending changes > is a possibility. There is a very big difference between suggesting the handling of DKIM and ADSP and quite another to suggest making user visible changes, especially for MLM behaviors that are so well-entrenched. >> Changing MUAs will not alter MLM DKIM breakage. Please explain how you >> think it can. > > MLM behaviour is driven by client need. It is presumably there because MUA > can't or won't provide the desired functionality. MUA changes may remove the > need for DKIM incompatible MLM behaviour when clients have this function > served by their MUA. I do not understand your explanation. My failure to understand is so extensive I cannot even think of a question or comment to offer in an attempt to resolve the point. >>> 5.X MLM ADSP >>> >>> A participating MLM should be able to assert a ADSP policy. >> >> This sort of statement is certainly controversial > > I suspect more ADSP angst reasons than technical reasons. angst is a nicely deprecatory term. it suggests that there are no serious operational or policy concerns. d/ [1] rfc 5598 -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
