-----Original Message-----
From: John Levine [mailto:johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 1:25 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-03
If we do that, I think that in fairness to people reading it, we
should say explicitly which recommendations are based on practice, and
which are paper designs a/k/a wild guesses. Unless I've missed some
implementations, we have considerable experience with lists signing,
and some anedotal experience with damage from ADSP, but everything
else falls into the latter category.
I'm fine with that. I think I've tried to do that, albeit weakly, using words
like "could". I don't mind being more explicit.
I'm also scratching my head about the bits that are intended to help
people work around faulty DKIM implementations. Are there other IETF
documents that do that?
I'll have to re-read it, but no specific "work around" type intent should be
there. I do think, though, that we've mentioned that there are broken
implementations and described how they usually work, and I think that's
appropriate.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html