List traffic is one of the few cases where the recipient has
affirmatively opted in to receive it.
I agree with Mark, mail agents should be processing identified list
traffic in a very different manner to ordinary unsolicited traffic.
We need to define rules for a compliant mailer so mailing list authors
know what to code to. But the mailing lists that are going to bite us
are the legacy ones that are not in compliance.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Mark Delany
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:59 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM and mailing lists
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:38:53PM +0100, Eliot Lear allegedly wrote:
Mark Delany wrote:
Given the religion, I wonder whether both are entirely reasonable
and leave the choice to the particular list implementor.
I know I don't want to take on the argument of which is
reasonable so
applying guidance for both and for clients in the face of both is
important. Particularly for whether or not you protect the Subject
line and how at all to limit length, and or resign. There are some
serious UI issues there.
The very early thinking back at DK-00 was that a
participating list might sign List-ID. The idea being that
List traffic is distinctly different and that a verifier/UA
might sensibly treat such traffic differently in the presence
of a List-ID. Subsequent revisions went down the path of
generalizing that to Sender.
In retrospect, I'm not sure I'm a fan of that generalization
as List traffic is so different that it need not be squeezed
into a generalized category that otherwise is almost
completely absent in real-life traffic.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org