On 10/11/2009 03:26 PM, Michael Deutschmann wrote: > On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Michael Thomas wrote: >> On 10/11/2009 02:41 AM, Michael Deutschmann wrote: >>> If this is indeed the official semantics of the protocol, then I would >>> petition to add a "dkim=except-mlist" policy. Which means "I sign >>> everything that leaves my bailiwick, but may post to signature-breaking >>> MLs." >> >> No need. That is exactly what the semantics of "all" is. > That appears to be a contentious issue. > > While I don't think the Hector/Levine interpretation is very useful, I > think it would be a sound strategic move to yield to them regarding > dkim=all, and instead create our own dkim=except-mlist space where our > semantics are in place with *no ambiguity*.
Not really. If there's some confusion with the current rfc -- and "all"'s text is pretty spartan, though not in 5016 -- filing an errata against it to clear up the confusion would be better. My guess is that there's exactly zero appetite to opening up this can of worms again beyond that. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
