-----Original Message-----
From: John R. Levine [mailto:johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:39 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] actual practice, In the spirit of moving
forward...
Is anybody going to be really upset if I go that route and then work
toward a WGLC later this year?
Nope, so long as it describes actual practice, as a BCP is supposed to
do.
The current status is Information, which gives us a little more leeway.
It doesn't have to be universal practice, but it really should be
something that someone, somewhere does, so we can at least have an
existence proof that it doesn't immediately cause massive failures.
Here's some actual practice I have observed in the wild:
- sign list mail with a list signature (Yahoo Groups, Google Groups,
this list, my lists)
- add and sign an A-R header describing signatures on inbound mail
(this
list, Googlegroups using an X- header)
- remove signatures from incoming mail (Googlegroups, Yahoo Groups,
this
list)
- keep signatures from incoming mail even if they're broken (my lists)
Anything else?
That all makes sense, and from memory I think that is what we're saying right
now. I'll double-check this afternoon.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html