On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/11/2009 02:41 AM, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
If this is indeed the official semantics of the protocol, then I would
petition to add a "dkim=except-mlist" policy. Which means "I sign
everything that leaves my bailiwick, but may post to signature-breaking
MLs."
No need. That is exactly what the semantics of "all" is.
That appears to be a contentious issue.
While I don't think the Hector/Levine interpretation is very useful, I
think it would be a sound strategic move to yield to them regarding
dkim=all, and instead create our own dkim=except-mlist space where our
semantics are in place with *no ambiguity*.
---- Michael Deutschmann <michael(_at_)talamasca(_dot_)ocis(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html