ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Refocusing on the re-charter

2009-10-18 12:37:47
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Barry wrote:
Now we're talking about the "Thomas
interpretation" and the "Levine interpretation", and I posit that it
doesn't matter, at this point, whether they have different
interpretations (actually, I like John's most recent post on that),
and we won't know who's "right" until we have time to get more data.

It is of some actual importance to resolve this schism.

If receivers are afraid senders will follow the Thomas interpretation,
and say "dkim=all" despite posting to mailing lists that break their
signatures, they will not act on "dkim=all".

If senders are afraid receivers will follow the Levine interpretation,
rejecting broken signatures at CR LF '.' CR LF without first whitelisting
mailing list traffic, they will not post "dkim=all".

Result: ADSP doesn't block a thing.

and to avoid pugilism.  Or perhaps you can get Dave to start up a new

I haven't noticed any incivility in these discussions.

And while I lean towards Levine, it doesn't really matter to me which
side wins.  Indeed, a decisive Thomas victory would remove the need for
except-mlist.  It's only the ambiguity that is a problem.

(So as someone in authority, if you *choose one side* and close the book,
it just might stay closed...)

---- Michael Deutschmann <michael(_at_)talamasca(_dot_)ocis(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>