Barry Leiba wrote:
I'm not in favour of complicating the protocol, when we can do what we
want to do with what's there. I'd really need to see significant new
use cases to drive any major change here.
DKIM implementation is already complex and confusing. The goal of
policy was to make it protocol consistent, "easier" and give it a real
This isn't about "use cases" but business methodologies - allowing for
opened ended signing "passthru" machines vs having author domain
controls over that signing process.
On the other hand, I'd see nothing wrong if someone should want to
write a draft about mailing-list considerations, and propose it as a
working group item. But I'd want to see it as a draft that we can
review, not just as a few ideas in an email message.
Barry, there has been drafts written on Mailing List Server (MLS)
considerations. But it all a moot point if RFC 5617 will not be
honored by the MLS.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to