I don't think it is helpful for the IETF to describe its work product as
'flavor-of-the-month'.
DKIM is an IETF Proposed Standard.
Using DKIM is thus a dog-food issue. SPF/Sender-ID on the other hand are
arguably not at the same status but there is a general consensus amongst the
spam community that they help the spam-fighters.
That said, I also +1 on the monthly reminders issue. I would like the monthly
reminder to include a NOTE WELL section.
It would also enable services such as allowing mail to be redirected en-mass
for a given recipient when they change jobs or email provider. Or simply decide
that they would prefer to direct all their IETF mail to another account so they
don't run up an incredible bill on the pager.
________________________________
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of Rich Kulawiec
Sent: Mon 14/04/2008 2:38 PM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 08:13:23PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
I think there is probably convenience value to housing the mailing lists
at the IETF. It allows for a single whitelist, reduction in those
annoying monthly messages that we eventually all filter into the
bitbucket.
I'll concur with the general sentiment here, although I don't think
there's any need for DKIM or any of the other related flavor-of-the-month
technologies (SenderID, SPF, etc).
A suggestion -- to Eliot's point about monthly reminders -- would be
to consider consolidating those into a single reminder that covers all
IETF mailing lists. This would cut down IETF-outbound mail volume as well
as per-recipient inbound mail volume, while (I think) still serving the
same function.
---Rsk
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf