-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Charles
Lindsey
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 4:36 AM
To: DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-03
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.
I don't agree, at least not in the architecture I have in mind. The verifier
(e.g. a mail plugin of some kind, or an internal function of an MTA) is in a
position to conduct rejections as it sits very near the SMTP portion of a
delivery. The receiver, more likely an MUA or such, is less likely to have any
direct influence.
Also, section 5.6 is still entitled "Pros and Cons of Signature
Removal",
and yet the body of that section contains no "Cons".
The first paragraph describes a "pro" of leaving them in (i.e., enabling
preservation of chain of responsibility), and the second describes a "con"
(i.e., if that's a goal, now the MLM might have to change its behavior to do
so). The next paragraph describes a "pro" of removing them, etc.
And also, in 5.7 s/The MLM could re-evaluate exisiting signatures/The
MLM
could re-evaluate existing signatures/.
Fixed for the next version.
Evidently, my draft to allow changing the From: has not been
incorporated.
Would it be worthwhile calling a straw poll on that one?
It didn't appear to have the support of rough consensus, so it wasn't included.
You could indeed request such a poll to see if that's changed.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html