But what you're saying seems antithetical to most of the document,
which goes to some lengths to describe ways that MLMs and DKIM can
co-operate better. So should we not bother?
Oh no. (That is. we shouldn't not bother.) There's plenty of good
stuff in your draft, but on reflection I think the key is for the DKIM
camp to be modest in its claims and goals. Mailing lists do what they
have done for 30 years, and they're not going to change in any major
way. To the extent that DKIM can help them do what they're going to
do anyway, it's useful.
The discussion of different kinds of lists is certainly helpful, but
we risk going into the weeds when we start getting into complex
analyses and advice for scenarios that seem (to me at least) pretty
far fetched.
So, for example, one of the things that lists have always done is send
mail to people who have subscribed and presumably want it. Signing
the outgoing mail should help receipients recognize the mail they
want, so it makes sense to recommend that.
On the other hand, providing per-contributor reputation clues to
subscribers (beyond what's on the From: line) is something that lists
have never done, so I think it's a poor idea to try to invent ways to
do that.
Does that make sense?
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html