On Monday, August 09, 2010 05:38:18 pm Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, August 09, 2010 04:11:57 pm John R. Levine wrote:
Why do you simplify handling of list mail to sorting and filtering,
ignoring two other important list handling activities:
1. reading mail
2. responding to mail
Well, OK. Can you offer some non-hypothetical situations where you
would read or respond to list mail differently if there were extra
assurance on identity of the list contributor?
Or to put it another way, if someone has put an S/MIME signature on a
messsage sent through a list, does that affect the way you respond?
It's not at all clear to me that the answer to that question is in any
way related to the work of the working group. What would we design
differently if the answer was yes (or no)?
Let me try to explain. If the identity of the list contributor is of any
value to the receiver of an MLM-distributed message, then it is
important to (try to) preserve the original DKIM signature across an MLM
redistribution of the message (if at all possible). If however the
identity of the list contributor is of no value whatsoever, we should
not bother about preserving the original DKIM signature.
Not at all.
If the receiver is going to act differently to signed or unsigned mail from
certain domains, then it's important to preserve the signature or change the
domain. For receivers of non-trivial scale they aren't in a position to know
what mail they are receiving is MLM-distributed, so the question of how they
would treat MLM-distributed mail is irrelevant because they don't and can't
segregate it that way.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html