ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] list vs contributor signatures, was Wrong Discussion

2010-04-29 13:06:45
On 04/29/2010 10:47 AM, Al Iverson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Michael Thomas<mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>  
wrote:
On 04/29/2010 10:23 AM, Al Iverson wrote:

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:58 AM, McDowell, 
Brett<bmcdowell(_at_)paypal(_dot_)com>
  wrote:

On Apr 28, 2010, at 2:11 PM, John R. Levine wrote:


Your proposal that MLM remove Signatures would cause restrictive
policies to fail.

Which is why I oppose this proposal.

As John Levine mentioned previously, your own posts to this list fail
authentication and end up in many of our spam folders because of
Paypal's SPF policy. I'm not against strong authentication policies --
but I'm wondering how you personally expect to be able to post to
mailing lists without acceptance of this proposal? The status quo
interferes with your ability currently, and broader adoption of
authentication on the receiving side will only make it worse.

The solution to a misconfigured SPF/ADSP record is for every receiver to
patch it up post-hoc?

I did not say that.

Then what did you say? If somebody's SPF/ADSP record is set up such that it
fails through lists and they want their users to be able to use lists, they
should change their SPF/ADSP record to reflect their actual sending practices.
Putting the burden on mailing lists and everybody else to try to figure out
what they *really* meant makes absolutely no sense.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Your apparent anger makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion.

Your amateur psychology pronouncements are not appropriate for this list.

Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

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