ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

[ietf-dkim] Feedback on draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists for discussion

2010-08-01 17:24:55
Some offlist feedback I wanted to bounce to the list to gauge consensus:

a) Section 5.1 currently advocates a warning to new subscribers to an MLM with 
a highly restrictive ADSP policy.  Should this be stronger, such as "a warning 
is advised, and full denial should be considered"?

b) Would it be a good idea to suggest MLM implementers make signing of 
submissions into a user-configurable option?  I think there was some text in 
there already about the idea of bifurcating the list's output into a signed 
stream and an unsigned stream, but since I'm getting the opposite suggestion 
now it probably means the draft doesn't indicate in enough detail why this 
might be a bad (or good) idea.  Can anyone provide some additional commentary?

c) A "-1" to the idea of altering From: to cope with ADSP; the reason given: 
"This presumes endpoints will understand a DKIM-related From:-altered message."

-MSK
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html