ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

[ietf-dkim] dkim and mailing lists

2010-08-10 12:46:36
Should DKIM transit a mailing list?
if a message arrives at a list manager the author/sender theoretically should 
be a pre-qualified by whatever means used to be a member of that list. Any 
recipient that has subscribed to that list has a reasonable expectation that 
any message addressed to the list would be interesting. With that in mind all 
signatures should be discarded, resigned by the dkim aware mailing list then 
forwarded on as if it is a "new" mail message. Now whether a dkim aware mailing 
list should follow adsp practices is worth discussing.
thanks,
Bill Oxley 
On Aug 10, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:



On 8/9/2010 11:53 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Since Dave suggests a fissioning of this document into two or more, I'll hold
off applying his until after that's done and some discussion about it has
been had.


I'm a fan of getting the mix and balance of documents right.  Extra documents 
are a hassle, but a single document that mixes agendas is too.  I was a bit 
surprised to make the suggestion that this doc get split.

1.  Are there different topics?  If so, what are they and which should be 
pursued?  The working groups needs to comment on this.

    I think I saw 3 different topics, and that there has already been a bit 
of 
discussion about this.  The topics are:

    a.  Handling DKIM messages transiting a Mailing List Manager

    b.  Trust-based enhancements for Mailing List Managers based on DKIM

    c.  Best practices for Mailing List Managers

The first is/was the official goal of the current work.

The latter two have emerged.  Neither is formally within scope of the working 
group, although b. is a natural addition.  Note, however, that it is formal 
protocol specification work and we need to worry about adoption first -- who 
needs to adopt it and why do we think they will?

c. is not reasonably in scope; I do not see any way to justify it within this 
working group, in spite of there having been some good discussion.


2.  If a split is appropriate, how should the existing content be divided?

    I vote for letting Murray handle this.  (You're welcome, Murray.)

So, the first question is intended to get some working group consensus, 
before 
Murray puts in the effort of dividing things up.

d/
-- 

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html


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