> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of John R. Levine > Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 10:11 AM > To: Charles Lindsey > Cc: DKIM > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02 review > > > What ADSP users want is irrelevant. This is about what MLMs want (which > is > > most likely to ensure that submitted messages reach the whole of their > > list without problems). > > Right. The easiest way to do so, assuming you believe that enough people > will use ADSP to matter, is to discard incoming messages with ADSP > settings that can cause trouble. If they say their mail is discardable, > take them at their word and discard it. >
I agree that if a signing domain publishes discardable then the MLM should discard it. Let's apply a little logic here. The types of mailstreams that have been identified as being suitable candidates for ADSP discardable have always been ones that would not be appropriate (bank notifications, etc) for passing through MLMs in the first place. While an ecard might be sent to all the members of a list, this is enough of a corner case that if the domain publishes discardable then that message should be discarded even though it would otherwise be legitimate. If a domain publishing ADSP discardable has not gotten control of their mailstreams then all I can say is "Darwin was right". > > Clearly, mailing lists that do things to the From: SHOULD (even MUST) > > sign, and any RFC documenting my proposal would include that. > > Hmmn. Since you apparently believe this is a valuable and useful > proposal, could you remind us why, exactly, you're not writing it? > > Writing I-Ds isn't hard. Lots of us do it all the time. > I would have to see the details of the draft before commenting on whether it makes sense. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
