On 27 Sep 2010, John R. Levine wrote:
A reasonable interpretation of the RFC is that "dkim=all" still indicates
that all mail with no signature is bogus
No. If that's what we meant, that's what we would have said.
I base that on section B.1, which specifically mentions mailing lists as
a possible contraindication to "dkim=all" use.
And, last year (2009-10-10), you said:
People who contribute to mailing lists shouldn't say dkim=all. We
argued this ad nauseam when we were hammering out ADSP, it shouldn't
come as a surprise to anyone.
(which is what lead me to propose except-mlist in the first place.)
So if "dkim=all" is:
* not suitable for senders who are as confident in their signing as
"dkim=discardable" users, but do not approve of discarding mail without a
bounce.
* not suitable for people who sign all first-party mail but post to
legacy mailing lists.
... then what the heck is it good for?
---- Michael Deutschmann <michael(_at_)talamasca(_dot_)ocis(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html