Steve Atkins wrote:
On May 26, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
If by traditional, you mean the members are vetted with subscription
and confirmation, then this tends to be true. But when not, when the
list or any group forum is anonymous in nature, history has told us
its get corrupted with junk and most people tend to dislike it.
In that case the reputation of the MLM is poor, and I don't want to
receive email from it. I still don't care about who the participants
are.
But it is the participants that make up the quality of the public
discussion group. Sure, you're point is clear that you may not pay
attention to the individuals. But others do.
For the most part, most people will agree Google is a good intention
and "reputable" company, not out to harm people, etc. But do we
always trust all their google groups because it was signed by google?
I don't think so.
In my opinion, its more about the particular list of interest one has
and its make up of people that make it a quality discussion group.
You (speaking in general) selected the list you wanted, so it should
go without saying you like and trust the list.
Does certification change that? Sounds more like an marketing issue:
Join our discussing list. Approved by VeriSign as a
Trusted List Vendor!
I think the focus has been lost because the real problem is how to
deal with the unknowns signer. We are trying to figure out a way to
get a 3rd party to vouch for them - a 3rd party you always trust.
I don't think DKIM changes much of one already subscribe to a list
that he has interest in.
Now, if you were to say:
I only will accept list mail when its signed because I expect
it to be signed and anything else not signed "purported" to be
by the list I will not accept or ignore.
Then we are talking about something else.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html