On 08/05/2011 20:11, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 8/5/2011 2:56 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> To me it boils down to you saying in effect, "Here is my way of working
>> with e-mail, and I'd like the IETF to support it." If there was a way
>> that we could do that which had no impact on people who don't work that
>> way (such as the List-Id header) then I'd say go for it! But for those
>> of us who already filter our mail into folders these [tags] are useless
>> clutter that take up valuable screen real estate.
>
>
> Doug,
>
> Perhaps you missed the part about this being common practice, including
> for other IETF mailing lists?
Why yes Dave, this is my first time writing an e-mail, or participating
in a, what do you call them? Mailing list? So thanks for pointing that
out to me.
> You are already suffering with the useless clutter. The incremental
> pain for you is going to be nil.
That's the argument of someone who thinks that the thing proposed is a
good idea. If you believed it to be a bad idea I'm sure that you
wouldn't be suggesting that we add to the incremental pain.
>> If they break dkim that's a whole 'nother category of problems.
>
> DKIM is designed for to deal with one posting and one delivery. Mailing
> lists take delivery and re-post. For almost all scenarios, DKIM was not
> intended to survive re-posting.
I wasn't referring to the post from the originator to the list, I was
referring to the message posted from the list.
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
