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.
The RFC already says what to do, and the "except-mlist" proposal seems
to me indistinguishable from "all", as stated in the RFC. The point
isn't what's in the documents, but what actually happens in the
implementations (given that we have no control over what verifiers do,
beyond what the spec says). And we don't know that yet.
If you really want to close this, I can't stop you.
It's not a question of what I want, but what the consensus of the
working group is. If there's consensus in the working group that we
need to discuss this further and work on an "except-mlist" option,
I'll put that in the charter. I don't see consensus for it yet, but I
can certainly be convinced. Though not by further argument from you
-- I already know and respect your view on it. We'd need to see
support from others.
Barry, as chair
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html