> Instead, what if we invented a canonicalization specifically for lists > that recognized the content munging of lists as first-class behavior > that encompassed things like l= and [] and other typical list munging?
How about if we just encouraged people who run lists to sign their mail? This whole list signature breakage argument is a tempest looking for a teapot. I sort my list mail by the list, not by the individual list contributors, and I've never met anyone who does otherwise. After scratching my head for a long time, the only problem I can imagine that might be solved by preserving incoming signatures is a list with an incompetent manager who allows vast amounts of bogus stuff through his list, but for some reason people want to subscribe to it anyway and do the spam filtering that the list mangager should be doing. Should such a list exist, the right thing to do is to fix the list, not to invent piles of arcane hackery so that subscribers can sort of reverse engineer what the list should have been doing all along. Regards, John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly PS: Also consider that Yahoo Groups probably pumps out more list mail than all the Mailman and majordomo lists in the world combined, and there's no way we'd ever be able to back out the message rewriting that it does. Even Mailman does MIME rewriting when it adds footers that nothing like l= could work around. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
