On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:17 PM, J.D. Falk
So what we SHOULD be arguing about (those of us interested in forward
progress) is whether draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02 meets the documentation
goal Rolf described above.
existing misspelled below:
o What are the tradeoffs regarding having an MLM remove exisitng
DKIM signatures prior to re-posting the message?
Section 3.3 - last paragraph, "the" misspelled - "before hte message"
Below are my comments on draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02. I have
caught up with the mailing list posts as of today (well, within the
last 3 hours or so), but I haven't retained in my head what others
have already said. If some of this has discussed already, I apologize.
I think we are very close to Rolf's stated goals.
Section 1.3 - I'd change "bulk mail sender" to just "sender". I have
trouble seeing how any bulk sender would end up sending to a MLM.
author - is it really defined that way in email-arch? That definition
would mean an ESP would be considered the author. As an ESP we
construct messages from content objects created by our clients. I'm
having trouble with the word "constructed" in that section. Perhaps
"The agent that actually created the content of the message....". I
really don't like that either. I'd like to say the agent that authored
the message. :) Think in terms of books.
signer - Last sentence: A signer may also be same agent as an
originator or author.
3.2 MLM Output: why is the MLM considered the author? Shouldn't it be
"consuming the author's copy of the message and creating its own."
seems a little off to me. I get what it is trying to say, but I think
a gentler view would be to view it as a newspaper. Each article has
it's own author and the newspaper presents a group of articles along
with a other interesting content. So maybe "consuming the author's
copy of the message and producing a mailing list version of that
3.3 Is the reference to John L needed? :)
"There reportedly still exist a few scattered mailing lists in
operation that are actually run manually by a human list manager,
whose workings in preparing a message for distribution could include
the above or even some other changes."
"A signing MLM is advised to add a List-Post: header field (see
[LIST-URLS]) using a DNS domain matching what will be used in the
"d=" tag of the DKIM signature it will add to the new message...."
I'd remove this paragraph. I strongly believe that d= needs stands on
its own. Anything that promotes the notion of that a class of d= is
more or less than another because it matches some other header field
or not should be discouraged.
I don't really understand why we need this section at all. Perhaps I
can buy someone a beer in DC to help me understand it. (ah, B.2 helps,
Why 5.7.2 instead of 5.7.1? There is no expansion going on at the receiver.
I don't agree with the last paragraph. I don't see rejects causing
more harm than good. Section 5.10 is targeted for receivers. The
subscribers of the mailing lists. Since this document is targeted at
MLM, how are we expecting subscribers to pay attention to this
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to