--On 14 May 2010 15:22:02 +0200 Barry Warsaw <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello folks,
I wanted to point people to this draft RFC:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dkim-lists/
by Murray S. Kucherawy, addressing DKIM issues related to mailing list
managers. Murray has contacted Mark and I, and I'd like to invite your
input on this mailing list.
-Barry
I'm curious about this paragraph:
"Common modifications include:
o Add header fields such as Reply-To:, Sender:, Resent-Sender:
([MAIL]), List-Id: ([LIST-ID]) or List-Unsubscribe: ([LIST-URLS]).
In some cases, such header fields are replaced if the original
message already contained them."
Does mailman replace such headers?
Is that desirable for umbrella lists? For example, if list B is subscribed
to list A, then I guess the list-unsubscribe header does need to be
replaced, since it's misleading to pass unsubscription details for list A
to the subscriber of list B.
Is it still desirable for Mailman 3.0? I guess it'll be less common, since
a single site will replace umbrella lists with rosters. However, if list A
and list B are on different sites, the problem will persist.
What happens with digest messages? Is each digested message packaged
sufficiently such that a DKIM message that it carries will not be broken?
Is that possible? Does the idea of packaging single messages (like a digest
of one) have any merit?
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
Mailman-Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Searchable Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
