On 10/11/2009 03:26 PM, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
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*.
Not really. If there's some confusion with the current rfc -- and
"all"'s text is pretty spartan, though not in 5016 -- filing an errata
against it to clear up the confusion would be better. My guess is
that there's exactly zero appetite to opening up this can of worms
again beyond that.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html