>> ANNEX A - MUA Considerations > >Is a draft about mailing lists the right place to make recommendations >to MUA developers? Seems like those should probably be in a separate >document.
No, but the entire document is riddled with advice that has no basis in experience and is unlikely ever to be implemented. We have a serious problem that people in this group have deeply incompatible ideas of what DKIM does. A lot of the arguments seem to be from people who believe that a DKIM signature can or should identify the individual author of a message, and that subscribers to mailing lists need assurances about the identity of list authors beyond the minimal level that has been adequate for the past twenty years. I have trouble understanding how anyone who is familiar with DKIM or with the operation of mailing lists could hold these positions, but it is quite obvious that some do. At this point, unless we can cut back the MLM document to stick to items that we have consensus about, e.g., that it is typical for signatures applied to incoming mail not to verify after a message passes through an MLM, and that it would be nice if a list or its MTA signed its outgoing mail, I don't think we will produce anything that is useful to anyone. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
