Dave CROCKER wrote:
You're trying very hard to infer something that was not stated or implied in
either what Dave said above or in the specs themselves.
In general, people are trying very hard to infer something from DKIM
signatures and from ADSP that simply can't be safely inferred from the
protocols as they have been defined so far.
...
Some constructive work would be really helpful here rather than all this
fist-pounding
All of which begs the basic question of why this thread is being pursued?
The
questions and answers aren't new.
Here we go again - Ignore the problem, slam others, tell others to
ignore posters and the concerns.
There is a different now Crocker.
By adding DKIM to your list server, and intentionally violating RFC
5617, you have PROVEN that you can create interoperability problems
for yourself, downlinks and list members..
If for once, you get your head out of the sand, with the REAL CROCKER
come out, and stop ignoring this real issues which you know in your
heart you agree, you would address the issue.
The question I poise is why are list server (re)signers exempt from
supporting RFC 5617 which is specifically designer to protect again
resigner abuse?
Provide a answer please.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html