Branching the discussion with regard to MLM subject tags.....
On Jun 1, 2010 at 18:43 -0000, John Levine wrote:
=>
=>>> > "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.
Not a direct reply to the discussion above, but the more general
discussion of "upgrades" to MUAs....
* What about non-MUA filtering? How many SIEVE/procmail filters live
on systems that filter MLM streams by the subject tag? "Upgrading" the
MUA won't fix those filters.
Granted those filters can be updated to use the List-ID header too, just
wanted to mention another place where they are used.
* What about MLM options where subscribers get to choose if they receive
messages with the subject tag or not? If the change to the Subject
header by the MLM was the only thing that broke the DKIM signature, you
have fragmented the issue so far discussed. (I am new to ADSP so my
thinking is probably off.) How should the MLM handle the difference
between those two subscriber types (non-subject-tag=valid DKIM signature
v. subject-tag=broken DKIM signature) so that you have consistence
deliverability?
--
***********************************************************************
Derek Diget Office of Information Technology
Western Michigan University - Kalamazoo Michigan USA - www.wmich.edu/
***********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html