ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-03

2010-10-06 07:13:53
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 22:16:48 +0100, Murray S. Kucherawy  
<msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com> wrote:

This version consolidates all of the minor corrections submitted to  
date, as well as the more substantive things that appeared to have  
consensus.

Of the points I raised, I see that 4.3 still contains "the verifier is    
requested to discard the message". It is, of course, the receiver that  
actually does any discarding.

Also, section 5.6 is still entitled "Pros and Cons of Signature Removal",  
and yet the body of that section contains no "Cons".

And also, in 5.7 s/The MLM could re-evaluate exisiting signatures/The MLM  
could re-evaluate existing signatures/.

Evidently, my draft to allow changing the From: has not been incorporated.  
Would it be worthwhile calling a straw poll on that one?

Many of the people opposed to that seem to be imagining that I have  
proposes an obligatory feature for all MLMs, which my draft carefully  
avoided doing. Or they oppose it because then prefer their own pet  
solution, whereas I have proposed an additional tool for use when the pet  
solutions have been ignored.

Also, I am still unaware of any additional security issue raised by my  
proposal which was not already present without it.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html