-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Alessandro
Vesely
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 8:37 AM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-04.txt
I have two issues:
*scope*
Apparently, there is consensus that "Discussion lists and broadcast
lists are not the same thing" [WV]. Section 3.2 exemplifies
newsletters and bulk marketing mail as "authoring" MLM modes. In
facts, most of the advice covers mailing lists proper. Should
ESP-lists be removed from the I-D entirely, e.g. by saying they are
not covered right after their definition?
[WV] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2010q3/014474.html
Section 3.2 says:
Much of this document focuses on the resending class of MLM as it has
the most direct conflict operationally with DKIM.
Do we need to be more forceful than that?
*re-signing*
After recent discussions, it seems inadvisable that "A DKIM-aware
resending MLM is encouraged to sign the entire message". In
particular, section 5.7 may suggest that fields that had not been
signed by the author domain neither be signed by the MLM, unless the
MLM itself introduced or modified them.
That's not a bad idea. Any support or objections from others?
Generic advice, such as the possibility of dropping unsigned fields,
will probably be added to 4871bis. It may or may not be worth
repeating it here.
I hadn't seen any discussion about that for 4871bis. Can you point me to such
a posting?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html