> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen J. Turnbull [mailto:step...@xemacs.org] > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 10:38 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: Ian Eiloart; mailman-developers@python.org > Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs > > The success of the IETF RFC process is due to the fact that protocol > is built on existing practice, and compatible with it. Asking that > reality serve the needs of your spec is neither workable[1] nor > compatible with the philosophy of the RFC process.
I don't have a reality suspension field in effect on this topic. I was simply disputing the claim that complying with the List-Unsubscribe RFC constitutes "hiding" of those details. I understand the legal issues, and so I suggest that bringing them to the attention of MUA vendors might be a better solution given the pressures of the current evolution of the email environment. I don't claim MLMs are broken in this regard, but I do think some more modern thinking by all components is in order. > Footnotes: > [1] Good luck getting Joe Average to give up his Outlook, and even > better luck getting Microsoft to expose protocol headers in a sane way. Microsoft, for example, appears to be paying a little more attention to this stuff than they used to as they (quietly) begin supporting things like DKIM. Thus, I'm ever so slightly more hopeful than I used to be. _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org 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
