On 08/01/2010 03:22 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
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”?
Refusing is doing them a big favor, and a big favor to ADSP in general.
Assuming that "highly restrictive == discardable".
b) Would it be a good idea to suggest MLM implementers make signing of
submissions into a user-configurable option?
People don't even know how to unsubscribe from lists. No.
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?
Commentary: Ick. Lists should always sign their mail, just like anybody
else who (re)originates mail. If you want to start parsing differences
like who's incoming signature verified and whose didn't, use AR or
something else, but always sign the message.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html