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