On Wednesday, September 01, 2010 08:23:19 am John Levine wrote:
At this point, unless we can cut back the MLM document to stick to
items that we have consensus about, e.g., that it is typical for
signatures applied to incoming mail not to verify after a message
passes through an MLM, and that it would be nice if a list or its MTA
signed its outgoing mail, I don't think we will produce anything that
is useful to anyone.
If that's all we can say, I'd say don't bother. I don't see much value in
the DKIM working group saying it thinks mail should be signed by DKIM.
"e.g." means "such as" or "for example."
I expect there's a fair amount we agree on. Maybe it's enough to be
worth documenting, maybe not, but I think it would be more productive
to see what we agree on rather than trying to force our pet projects
into the document.
I'll cheerfully give up references to S/MIME, if other people will
give up on telling software developers how to rewrite MLMs to do
things they've never done before.
Don't forget that an experimental RFC is the accepted way to document
a paper design to see if it gets any traction, as the EAI group did
with various ways to represent non-ASCII e-mail addresses.
Since things to do to get signatures to survive on mailing lists doesn't seem
to be on your list of stuff we agree on, what else is? I know you said e.g.,
but given what I understand you to not agree on, I'm not sure what else is
left.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html