On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > I’d like some help tackling the next version of the MLM draft. People seem > to have varying ideas about what should be removed and perhaps appear in > other documents now. I need some consensus on a direction in which to > proceed. > > > > 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. Or 0. I'd have to see the resulting docs. Since MLM deal with individuals, I don't understand how DKIM helps here in terms of verification. If the goal is to somehow be able to verify users via DKIM, I don't see how that is MLM specific. > (2) Tear out everything having to do with making author signatures survive > list relaying, dropping all that text altogether, +1 I think. Again, I'd have to see the resulting draft. I'll revisit this tomorrow and see what it looks like. > point people at S/MIME or PGP (John’s proposal); -1. No need to mention it. But I agree with John that if people want signatures to survive MLM, then DKIM isn't it. -- Jeff Macdonald Ayer, MA _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
