On Friday, July 30, 2010 11:48:22 am Steve Atkins wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 12:26 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:56 PM
To: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Alternative MAiling List Approach
On Jul 29, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Should the MLM draft suggest From: replacement and addition of Reply-
To: as a specific example of DKIM-friendly MLM behavior?
No. DKIM doesn't really say much about either the From: address or the
Reply-To: address, so such a suggestion for "DKIM-friendly" behaviour
would be nonsensical.
It might be a reasonable suggestion for the benefit of other protocols,
but that's a different question.
Is it not an ADSP issue though? Covering ADSP issues is (at least
implicitly) in scope for this document.
It may well be an ADSP issue - I've not looked in detail at the
proposal - and it may be in scope for this document. (I suspect
it's also a bad idea, but that's a separate discussion).
It's definitely not a DKIM issue, though, and any labeling of a
non-DKIM issue as "DKIM-friendly" would be misleading.
IIRC we used to refer to the DKIM base signing spec and ADSP (and all the
names it previously had, most of which I've fortunately forgotten) as both
being part of DKIM. It seems a bit odd to me to refer to issues with specs
produced by the DKIM working group as "non-DKIM".
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html