> DKIM is a particular service. An MLM will typically destroy a DKIM > signature. If destruction doesn't count as "conflict with" then I don't know > what does.
I can live with Murray's language, but I'm seeing what appear to me to be some fairly basic disagreements about what DKIM does. My understanding is that it's intended to combine a modest integrity check of messages in transit with a responsible identity. That's all it does. In particular, it's not intended to provide long term bullet proof message protection, and (disregarding ADSP) there's no semantics assigned to the absence of a valid DKIM signature. The arguments about the alleged importance of preserving inbound signatures are silly for a bunch of reasons. One is three decades of practice in which nobody has worried about recipients verifying the identities of list contributors. (I can't help but note the absence of S/MIME or PGP signatures on the mail of people who argue otherwise.) Another is the observed consistent practice of sorting and I believe filtering based on the characteristics of the list rather than individual contributors. Also, if one believes that we should rewrite MLMs to provide some tortured way to pass through signatures, or to cater to misimplementations that penalize broken signatures, why stop there? Many lists are read through online reformatters like pipermail. Should we demand they all get rewritten to preserve DKIM signatures? If not, what's the difference? R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
