On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:28:18 -0000, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
We don't want the mailing list admin to reject is as being unsigned.
Maybe the gateway should have signed it (quite a good edea that, and
then the SSP and reputation of the gateway would come into play). But
is that sufficient to cover for the lack of a signature by foo.example?
I wonder how much of a real world example this really would be. I think
as a mailing list administrator I'd be quite offended that someone
attempted to gateway in a newsgroup without my permission.
Sure, it would be most impolite. Normally, the gatewaying would be done by
the mailing list administrator, or by somebody working in agreement with
him. And between them they have to sort this one out. But it would be a
good idea to make sure that sensible ways of sorting it out can be
devised, because if they can't we need to do some rethinking.
That is why I asked whether adding Resent-* headers by such gateways would
make things easier. It is not usually done AFAIK, but it sounds a sensible
and consistent thing to do.
A more likely case would be where some organization is doing the
gatewaying to and from a LOCAL newsgroup.
Yes, in a controlled local environment life is always easier. Maybe in
that environment you just sign the news as you said, and then the problem
goes away.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html