Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > So can I please get some +1s/-1s on each of the following: > > (1) Split the document into three documents: A DKIM MLM BCP that > discusses signing and verifying in the context of MLMs with no > value-add items addressed, a DKIM MLM Informational that > discusses possible value-add enhancements to MLMs in the DKIM world, and > a non-WG BCP about mailing lists irrespective of DKIM (Dave's proposal);
-1. Please no more delays! Dave's suggestions are not required to fix a problem. Your MLM is designed to FIX conflicts with current WG documents. > (2) Tear out everything having to do with making author signatures > survive list relaying, dropping all that text altogether, and > instead pointing people at S/MIME or PGP (John's proposal); -2. There are two parts to the above: -1. ADSP guidelines is a required engineering consideration for MLM. To remove can create interoperability problems. -1. Please No more dependencies on other technologies based on highly subjective non-scientific presumptions. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
