On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
<msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com> wrote:
I’d like some help tackling the next version of the MLM draft. People seem
to have varying ideas about what should be removed and perhaps appear in
other documents now. I need some consensus on a direction in which to
proceed.
So can I please get some +1s/-1s on each of the following:
(1) Split the document into three documents: A DKIM MLM BCP that discusses
signing and verifying in the context of MLMs with no value-add items
addressed, a DKIM MLM Informational that discusses possible value-add
enhancements to MLMs in the DKIM world, and a non-WG BCP about mailing lists
irrespective of DKIM (Dave’s proposal);
-1. Or 0. I'd have to see the resulting docs. Since MLM deal with
individuals, I don't understand how DKIM helps here in terms of
verification. If the goal is to somehow be able to verify users via
DKIM, I don't see how that is MLM specific.
(2) Tear out everything having to do with making author signatures survive
list relaying, dropping all that text altogether,
+1 I think. Again, I'd have to see the resulting draft. I'll revisit
this tomorrow and see what it looks like.
point people at S/MIME or PGP (John’s proposal);
-1. No need to mention it. But I agree with John that if people want
signatures to survive MLM, then DKIM isn't it.
--
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html