David Woodhouse wrote:
We should agree upon a scheme which _doesn't_ cause lots of broken or
missing signatures. Surely that's why we've decided to avoid trying to
protect the From: address for the entire lifetime of the mail, and
instead we're only looking at covering one transition through the mail
system?
I think you mean we've decided to avoid trying to "mandate the survival
of a signature from the From: address", right? A signature from a
mailing list can still protect the From: header by signing it.
I agree that the survival rate of messages through MTAs and forwarders
is key to the success of MASS signatures. Unless the great majority of
signatures survive, the community at large will just yawn and say "not
useful".
-Jim