+1
I agree alternatives should not, nor has it even been required, to
offer "criticism" in reviews. However, in this case, for what its
worth, I didn't see/read Kurt's comment as criticism so I don't think
the outburst was warranted.
Kurt might explain what he meant but I believe the 5322.List-ID header
appears to have less added value and significance for DKIM purposes.
It is very useful for the MUAs for categorizing mail. In fact, if we
were to use a "List-ID" to trigger perhaps some "relaxed" DKIM
verification method, it can be used as a DKIM policy security hole.
I think the List-ID idea for DKIM/Policy is where it can possibly
help in an automated registration scheme or even protocol to help
initiate the authorization process of MLMs. Its possible, but not
everyone will use the List-ID so it can't be completely automated.
I think the key essential difference for the the MLM condition is:
Author Domain IDentity (ADID) != Signer Domain IDentity (SDID)
That should be the trigger that will offer the maximum backend
compatibility and plug and play solution. No other triggers are needed.
--
HLS
On 5/4/2015 10:02 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/2/2015 9:56 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Guys, if you want to attack a proposal, please make one first.
Small process comment:
It's always best to offer a solution when one offers a criticism.
But it's not required.
If something won't work, it won't work.
Although desirable, offering a solution that /will/ work isn't a
pre-requisite to commenting about a proposal's deficiencies.
d/
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
