On Apr 26, 2010, at 10:05 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
I think we are having the wrong discussion. The real question is:
"What are appropriate practices for mailing lists in handling DKIM
signed mail?"
Agreed.
From my perspective, I'd like to enable (not mandate or expect universal
compliance with) the deployment scenario where the sender's DKIM signature is
either maintained without adulteration or "proxied" by the list so the
transient trust can be carried through the mailing list intermediary to the
destination (per Murray's note which I'm also going to respond to). That's my
use case. By sharing this use case I'm not trying to deprecate or undermine
John Levine's original use case. But there is a diversity of
valid/appropriate behavior by mailing lists vis-a-vis DKIM that we need to
consider (which is why I'm so pleased to see Mike H. take our discussion in
this direction).
-- Brett
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html