On May 10, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
On May 10, 2010, at 11:59 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
Apart from ADSP rules, a broken signature must be treated as if there was
no
signature at all. That in itself is not the problem. The problem with
broken
signatures is that people will not buy into a technology (DKIM) if it will
not cover a significant part of their e-mail.
Of course. That's why MLMs should sign their mail, or equvalently the MSA
they use should sign it. Problem solved, right?
Free bonus: MLMs can sign the list mail even if the contributor didn't
sign it.
+1. It's pretty much a non-issue (unless you believe that DKIM is
magic fairy dust that will prevent all "fraudulent use of your brand").
I believe we can disagree without being disagreeable. I'm sure there is no one
on this list (or in the world) who thinks DKIM is magic fairy dust that will
prevent all fraudulent use of a brand.
I would like to think we are all on this list making a good faith effort to
explore and debate the right way to deal with the status quo, including the
option of sustaining it. I personally don't agree with the position that the
status quo should be sustained, but I respect both that position and those who
articulate it.
FWIW,
-- Brett
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html