-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 7, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> John W. Baxter wrote:
>
>> On 2/7/07 8:46 AM, "Barry Warsaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Should we strip DKIM by default or not?
>>
>> Not strip by default.
>>
>> Even though that changes the defa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Excellent post Steve, thanks.
I think we're converging on a solution for Mailman both in the short
term and in the long term. See my previously posted wiki link for my
current thoughts on the matter. I just wanted to add one other thing...
On F
Mark Sapiro wrote:
> Michael Thomas wrote:
> My point is that for what I consider good reasons, Mailman will add the
> msg_footer to such a message by wrapping additional MIME structure
> around the original multipart/alternative message.
>
> I.e., the original
>
> multipart/alternative
> text/
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Excellent post Steve, thanks.
>
> I think we're converging on a solution for Mailman both in the short
> term and in the long term. See my previously posted wiki link for my
> current thoughts on the matter. I just wanted
On 2/8/07 10:27 AM, "Barry Warsaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Me too. Here's my discussion on the topic, including a concrete
> proposal for Mailman 2.1.10 and 2.2/3.0. Feel free to comment on the
> wiki on in this thread.
>
> http://wiki.list.org/x/OgM
>
Looks good to me.
" IOW, a valid s
Michael Thomas wrote:
>Mark Sapiro wrote:
>>
>> If we were to take a different approach with a signature containing l=,
>> either the l= includes all the text/plain and at least part of the
>> text/html, in which we can't add the footer to the text/plain
>> alternative without breaking the signatu
Mark Sapiro wrote:
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>
>> Similar for
>> text/plain too. For us at least (and it may be that we're just have a
>> lot of html hating
>> geeks), this seems to do the trick pretty well. I see some breakage from
>> multipart/
>> alternative, but not _that_ much.
>>
>
Barry Warsaw writes:
> Me too. Here's my discussion on the topic, including a concrete
> proposal for Mailman 2.1.10 and 2.2/3.0. Feel free to comment on the
> wiki on in this thread.
I'll try to post to the wiki later (I'm not a member yet and I'm
suffering mail delays---I expect I'll n
Barry,
Nice document. I still feel like I do not know enough about the
ramifications of stripping or not stripping the DKIM signature to be
sure of the right default, and I still think we could use some more
information and understanding of all of the factors. However, Your
proposed default of n
