----- "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba(_dot_)mailing(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Coming back to this: I've still seen very little direct input on the
charter proposal. JD likes it. Dave made some specific comments,
which I responded to; there've been no other comments on what Dave's
said. There've been no other specific proposals for changes to the
text.
Franck suggested gathering data on whether DKIM has been useful. I
responded to that, saying that I don't think it's a necessary issue
for chartering at this stage. Agreement or disagreement with that
would be useful.
Not sure about gathering data, but I don't want the group to loose track of the
end goal of all these tools, which is to help fight spam/abuse. I know this is
not the direct goal of DKIM, we had this discussion ;)
Bill suggested looking at extensions for additional signature
delegation, Michael Hammer agreed, and a thread branched off from
there. Is that still an active consideration for the charter, or
not?
Charles wants to see something more about guidance for mailing
lists.
Is that an active consideration?
I think guidance for mailing lists is needed. Postmasters will just implement
blindly tools like spamassassin and others.
Some have opined that it's even too early to consider taking the base
DKIM protocol to Draft Standard; let's make sure we have consensus on
that point, one way or the other.
I'd like to settle very soon on what, if anything, to do about
re-chartering. Please address my specific points, above, so we can
get there. And please keep the discussion focused on the charter,
without going into lengthy discussion of details of the work.
Barry, as chair
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html