On 8/9/2010 11:27 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: John Levine
[mailto:johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com]
Sec 3.2 2nd pp on page 9: "most direct conflict operationally with DKIM"
-> "widest range of possible interactions with DKIM" or something like
that. I don't see any confict at all.
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"?
I'm going to suggest that this sub-thread is pretty silly.
I think the existing wording is exactly correct. The quibbling about language
is based on a larger context of considerations than applies to the sentence in
the draft.
DKIM is a particular service. An MLM will typically destroy a DKIM signature.
If destruction doesn't count as "conflict with" then I don't know what does.
The sentence in the draft is actually quite carefully to say "operationally"
and
that is exactly the right description of the problematic effect of MLMs with
respect to the author-to-reader sequence of a DKIM-signed message.
Leave the sentence alone.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html