Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Maybe we should let the MLM developers, some of whom are here
(or were, maybe they've been scared off) comment?
Already did. We a FULL TIME commercial vendor with Mailing List
Components since 1996. The engineering I proposed came in th DSAP I-D
stating the same issues. Many also agreed here and to talk about it
other discussion areas.
There is NOTHING new here. It is about unrestricted 3rd party signers
and allowing them to exist without issues and the only reason there is
a revival of the issue it is now YOU with the MLM considerations -
anyone else would have been ignored like all these years.
But the issue is too fundamental to common sense engineering - it can
not go away on its own and not just by some saying "DON'T SUPPORT IT!"
At the end of the day, it is about the piece of C/C++ or whatever
language code that is going either blinding resign (something new) all
new era dkim messages (something new) or be restricted using domain
POLICY.
While POLICY is still on the table as a draft standard, no engineer
worth their salt should be IGNORING it. If he does, he has a BUG in
his software and whether he agrees or not, someone will throw it in
this face - you are violating RFC 5016..
Your MLM has it right Murray. It has all the information a MLM author
needs to go with to do this right.
You guys needs to make your minds regarding policy.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html