--On 30 April 2010 08:48:44 -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy"
<msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com>
wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Jeff Macdonald
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 8:32 AM
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Wrong Discussion - was Why mailing lists
should strip DKIM signatures
Perhaps poorly chosen words. But I think most understood the intent.
I'm willing to go from a world where any system can use my From to one
where only the systems I say can. And that means changes.
It has been pointed out that MLM implementers have even more inertia than
your average MTA implementer. Although many header fields have been
invented specifically for the purpose of aiding list management (your
List-Id: and List-Unsubscribe:, not to mention Sender:), their adoption
has not exactly been universal.
So you might be gung ho for big changes that will make things better, but
we need to accept the fact that a substantial portion of the installed
base won't change, at least not soon, and we can't ignore them. Any BCP
we produce will have to take that into account.
That's fine. "Best Current Practice", except when "Best" is redundant, is
not universal.
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html