On 6/1/2010 7:14 AM, Daniel Black wrote:
On Tuesday 01 June 2010 20:47:32 Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/29/2010 2:09 AM, Daniel Black wrote:
* email gateways became authenticated
What does this mean?
MSA became authenticated - generally a reduction in open relays.
An MSA is not a gateway.
* email providers were pressured to stay off blacklists by complying to a
set of practices including no open relays, RFC compliance to not sending
Pressure from whom? How is it manifest/documented?
From the users that get DSN or the intended recipients harassing their mail
administrators because mail isn't going trough.
Recipients complain to their own ISPs, not to senders.
MLMs, like mailman, have taken the
simple option of stripping DKIM signatures which has also had a positive
effect for many list admins.
This implies that DKIM-stripping is an active choice among MLMs. It isn't.
I was more highlighting there was an active choice in a MLM development to
remove DKIM headers (as a default enabled option I think) and without a
guidance such as what the draft is trying to achieve there could be more.
And my claim is that there was no such active choice.
section 3.3 Current MLM Effects On Signatures
Append at end of subject tags paragraph.
"The content of MLM modification of the subject tag is effectively
replicating the List-ID value in a way visible to the recipient. This
behavior was motivated by a lack of MUA support for displaying List-ID
tags. It desirable for MUA to start supporting List-ID tags in order to
deprecate this behaviour in MLMs."
This document has no goal nor scope for recommending basic changes to the
operation of mailing list managers.
An exploration of DKIM for MLM (ref abstract) sounds like recommending changes
is a possibility.
There is a very big difference between suggesting the handling of DKIM and ADSP
and quite another to suggest making user visible changes, especially for MLM
behaviors that are so well-entrenched.
Changing MUAs will not alter MLM DKIM breakage. Please explain how you
think it can.
MLM behaviour is driven by client need. It is presumably there because MUA
can't or won't provide the desired functionality. MUA changes may remove the
need for DKIM incompatible MLM behaviour when clients have this function
served by their MUA.
I do not understand your explanation. My failure to understand is so extensive
I cannot even think of a question or comment to offer in an attempt to resolve
5.X MLM ADSP
A participating MLM should be able to assert a ADSP policy.
This sort of statement is certainly controversial
I suspect more ADSP angst reasons than technical reasons.
angst is a nicely deprecatory term. it suggests that there are no serious
operational or policy concerns.
 rfc 5598
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to