-----Original Message-----
From: John R. Levine [mailto:johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 7:58 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-01 review request
Well the point is to address the fact that a lot of MLM actions
disrupt DKIM signature validation. Maybe "conflict" is too strong a
word, but "interactions" feels too soft as well. "Friction" feels like
the right ballpark, but sounds too negative. How about "foil",
"thwart" or "frustrate"?
Nope. Those all imply that it's important for recipients to validate
the contributors' signatures, which it's not. They really do have the
widest range of interactions, the most complex signup processes, the
mst complex techniques for deciding what to accept, and the most
varied modifications to the messages.
I agree with the second part but I'm not sold on the first. I get the
statement that an invalid signature is the same as no signature at all, but a
signature that can validate has the potential for saying something useful to
someone. The author/signer elected to apply DKIM to make a statement that it
hoped a receiver would find meaningful or useful. Maybe the receiver would be
really happy to get that information. Thus, any intermediary that interferes
with that desire is frustrating someone's attempt to say (or hear) something.
If we don't care about this and MLMs clobbering signatures is just a fact of
life, why are we even going through this effort?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html