ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2009-10-19 11:01:16
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Barry wrote:
My point, Michael, is that it doesn't matter what we "decide" in the
working group.  As John pointed out, what's relevant is not that he

I'd disagree.  All we need is an explicit statement in an RFC as to which
policy is "correct" in the common case that the sender is very confident that
all non-mailing-list mail will have an unbroken signature, but cannot make
any promises otherwise.  Once it is explicit, we won't have to worry about
private interpretations.

If you really want to close this, I can't stop you.  I just think publishing
an "except-mlist" policy to cover this common case, or at least clarifying
which of the existing policies to use, would have been low-hanging fruit
allowing us to improve the quality and quantity of ADSP deployment.

But for now, once Exim 4.70 is released, giving me the ability to
actually participate in DKIM, I shall be publishing a dkim=unknown
record.  (If you build "except-mlist", I will come...)

---- 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>