On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:05:38 +0100, Dave CROCKER <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not really, since it was known from the start that survival through an > MLM is > highly problematic and the steps towards helping survival were known to > be quite > limited. Nevertheless, there IS a solution that MLMs can use which will ensure survival through an MLM. Yes, it has a few downsides, but then so do all the other "solutions" suggested. Someone (the MLM for this particular case) has to evaluate the tradeoffs. If it is likely to be suitable for .some. MLMs, then it ought to be included in Murray's arsenal of possible mitigations. > > Requiring survival is a change in DKIM's goals, as well as raising a > massive > barrier to adoption, given the history of a) challenge in adoption for > any > infrastructure sequence, and b) resistance by MLM developers and > operators. Indeed. We will not REQUIRE survival, but some MLMs might like to provide it. A resistant MLM may suddenly find his list is not working as intended, due to discarding of mis-signed messages. We can't force him to drink our water; we cannot even lead him to it; but at least we should point out where it is. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: [email protected] snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
