Sorry if I jump in, some comments:
4.3 it would be nice to talk about message encoding change like QP->8bits,
may be in minor or major body changes. It is a minor change for the human
but major for the machines as many characters got changed.
5.1 "Some mail filtering software incorrectly penalizes a message
containing a DKIM signature that fails verification." You should
remind/add that a message that fails DKIM must be considered like having
no signature at all. Then you can bring ADSP, policy in the picture, and
there ADSP too will not make the difference if a message has no signature
or a failed signature. I have the feeling that making the point clears
helps in building message policies (out of scope of this document).
"such as a signing and author subdomain {DKIM 12}" -> "such as a signing
and author subdomain {DKIM 12} or a totally different domain"
5.2 There are some professional services that allows to look in to
reception at some providers
5.3 postmaster should inform their users that messages are likely to be
discarded if sent via a MLM.
6.8 talk about headers to add to the message but do not talk which
recommended headers should be signed. They are specified in DKIM 5.5 but
would be nice to do a reminder here specific to MLM.
Speaking of DKIM 5.5, List- headers are recommended to be signed, but
doesn't it creates confusion? My feel is that they should be signed only
if present in the message, if they are not present DKIM should not mention
them in h= at all.
On 5/7/11 6:30 , "Internet-Drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"
<Internet-Drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
wrote:
draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-08
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html