On 8/10/2010 9:54 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Sure. I got the impression this was something we should be saying based on
earlier conversation about whether the list should sign coupled with whether
the list should drop author signatures. Part of that chatter had to do with
combined reputation of the list and the author. If that's a real concern,
then on one hand a list/you can gain from the reputation of the other, but on
the other hand you can both suffer because of other traffic on the list.
This seemed to be a logical extension of that discussion.
If we feel that's too much of a leap, I can just remove that paragraph.
I think that the underlying sentiments of this sub-section are reasonable. But
I am concerned that it's focus and details are muddled. Unfortunately I think
that's because our group sense of the topic is still muddled, rather than
anything as simple to fix as Murray's writing. Certainly mine is muddled.
So I can't immediately offer modified text. The best I can suggest is some
further scrutiny. To that end:
1. "unexpected"
An author usually knows they are sending to an MLM. While they might not
know the actual recipient list, I would not class it as "unexpected". Worse,
I'm not sure this issue is relevant to the underlying concern here. Or, to the
extent it is, I'm not clear how. This might warrant explication.
2. "coupled with other messages"
This implies that a digest message might affect the reputation associated
with an author of a message in the digest. Do we really think this is
plausible? How?
3. "insulate one's reputation from influence by the unknown results"
This is a hugely substantive topic and frankly scares me. It seems to be
at
the heart of this sub-section but I suspect it is a much, much bigger topic.
For starters, is it realistic to pursue this goal at all?
4. "authors may be well-advised to create a mail stream specifically used for"
This raises the very basic question of whether an author can create/define a
mail stream? If so, how? If not, then the premise of this advice is defeated.
For that matter, since mail streams are defined by signing sub-domains, are
we
sure that that is relevant to this problem? If the original signature is
broken, the benefit of having different d= values is lost.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html