> -----Original Message----- > From: John R. Levine [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:39 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] actual practice, In the spirit of moving > forward... > > > Is anybody going to be really upset if I go that route and then work > toward a WGLC later this year? > > Nope, so long as it describes actual practice, as a BCP is supposed to > do.
The current status is Information, which gives us a little more leeway. > It doesn't have to be universal practice, but it really should be > something that someone, somewhere does, so we can at least have an > existence proof that it doesn't immediately cause massive failures. > > Here's some actual practice I have observed in the wild: > > - sign list mail with a list signature (Yahoo Groups, Google Groups, > this list, my lists) > > - add and sign an A-R header describing signatures on inbound mail > (this > list, Googlegroups using an X- header) > > - remove signatures from incoming mail (Googlegroups, Yahoo Groups, > this > list) > > - keep signatures from incoming mail even if they're broken (my lists) > > Anything else? That all makes sense, and from memory I think that is what we're saying right now. I'll double-check this afternoon. -MSK _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
