ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02 review

2010-09-01 16:46:10
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 4:56 AM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02 review

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.

I also submit that a two-paragraph document saying "Lists should sign mail" and 
"Lists should reject traffic from ADSP discardable domains" is not worth the 
effort to push through to publication as an RFC.  If that's the kind of 
clear-cutting we agree on, let's just make them new paragraphs or sections in a 
revision to the deployment document whenever we get around to it, and declare 
this document dead.

Personally I do see use in the document's current form.  Although I realize 
MLMs haven't done the work to preserve signatures in the past, I get the 
feeling there's desire out there for that to start to happen; receivers want 
it, for whatever reason, and I don't hear a lot of people coming out against 
the idea.  Are we really on solid ground telling them "You don't need/don't 
want/can't have it?"

I find the "Nobody's ever wanted this, why should it change now?" argument 
about MLM behavior antithetical to the whole DKIM premise.  The same logic 
there would sound like "Nobody's ever had a reliable identifier on a message 
before, what makes you think it's needed now?"

Maybe if people say they want preserved author signatures, and we encourage 
MLMs in the direction of preserving author signatures, and they're willing to 
give it a go, then it is indeed worth making a more meaty statement about it.


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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>