On 8/30/10 12:08 PM, Hector Santos wrote: > 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.
Agreed. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
