Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > 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.
It's not deliberate, let alone malicious, but it does conceal the details from the user's view, both in current practice (where few MUAs -- at least weighted by user count -- implement reasonable handling of those headers) and in reasonable implementations of the RFC (as in the part of my post that you snipped). > I don't claim MLMs are broken in this regard, but I do think some > more modern thinking by all components is in order. I agree, and have no objection to advocacy, or to RFCs that take advantage of more modern thinking. But that's very different from arguing that a defect in the DKIM RFC is really a problem of the implementations. _______________________________________________ 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
