I have to say that I share much of Dave's bafflement. And as a minor
list developer, I don't recognize any MLM I know in many of the
assertions below.
I was more highlighting there was an active choice in a MLM development to
remove DKIM headers (as a default enabled option I think) and without a
guidance such as what the draft is trying to achieve there could be more.
It's challenging to parse that sentence, but if you're saying that
MLMs currently strip DKIM headers, they don't other than perhaps by
turning on a general header-stripping feature. We're still arguing
about whether it's a good idea to do so.
Strongly recommending the placement of the optional reporting address defined
in draft-ietf-dkim-deployment will enable somebody to know the message isn't
getting through. Recipients also have a role in reporting ARF by using this
header field.
If you're assuming that MLMs will routinely send back DKIM failure
reports, that seems, ah, exceedingly unlikely.
As stated, this assertion is largely incorrect. It declares that a sender
who publishes DKIM/ADSP is (automatically) to be interpreted as a good
actor.
ok for clarity - the message received shouldn't be rejected on DKIM/ADSP
grounds.
How is this different from the way you'd handle any other message?
"The content of MLM modification of the subject tag is effectively
replicating the List-ID value in a way visible to the recipient. This
behavior was motivated by a lack of MUA support for displaying List-ID
tags. It desirable for MUA to start supporting List-ID tags in order to
deprecate this behaviour in MLMs."
As Dave said, no. Subject tags are a feature, not a bug. I hope we
can resist repeating the mistake that many SPF advocates made of
claiming that any mail behavior that doesn't work with SPF is a bug in
the mail software rather than a limitation of SPF.
MLM behaviour is driven by client need. It is presumably there because MUA
can't or won't provide the desired functionality. MUA changes may remove the
need for DKIM incompatible MLM behaviour when clients have this function
served by their MUA.
Maybe I'm suffering from a lack of imagination, but I can't parse this
in any way that makes any sense. It might be saying that if MUAs
contained all the features of MLMs, we wouldn't have MLMs, but that's
just silly.
A participating MLM should be able to assert a ADSP policy.
Since list messages have, pretty much by defintion, From: line
addresses in domains not under the control of the list manager, this
must be something other than what's described in RFC 5617.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html