On 27 Sep 2010, John R. Levine wrote: > > A reasonable interpretation of the RFC is that "dkim=all" still indicates > > that all mail with no signature is bogus > > No. If that's what we meant, that's what we would have said.
I base that on section B.1, which specifically mentions mailing lists as a possible contraindication to "dkim=all" use. And, last year (2009-10-10), you said: > People who contribute to mailing lists shouldn't say dkim=all. We > argued this ad nauseam when we were hammering out ADSP, it shouldn't > come as a surprise to anyone. (which is what lead me to propose except-mlist in the first place.) So if "dkim=all" is: * not suitable for senders who are as confident in their signing as "dkim=discardable" users, but do not approve of discarding mail without a bounce. * not suitable for people who sign all first-party mail but post to legacy mailing lists. ... then what the heck is it good for? ---- Michael Deutschmann <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
