On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Michael Deutschmann wrote:
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*.
Whatever the semantics that you have in mind, the underlying question is who
will adopt it and what is your basis for claiming they will adopt it? The
next
question is whether the answers to the first question justify the considerable
costs of pursuing this suggestion.
At the sender side, dkim=except-mlist would be very attractive if the Levine
interpretation of dkim=all stands. No large ISP could deploy the Levine all.
But as a practical matter, any organization with DKIM-supporting smarthosts,
that already uses SPF's "-all", could deploy dkim=except-mlist at minimal
risk.
At the receiver side, it's a little less useful, since no means is given to
tell whether a message is exempt mailing list traffic or must-be-signed
normal mail. Hence big ISPs are forced to accept some false negative risk by
treating except-mlist as unknown.
However, for people like myself who have whilelisted all incoming mailing
lists, except-mlist would be so much more helpful than unknown.
---- Michael Deutschmann <michael(_at_)talamasca(_dot_)ocis(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html