----- "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba.mailing.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Coming back to this: I've still seen very little direct input on the > charter proposal. JD likes it. Dave made some specific comments, > which I responded to; there've been no other comments on what Dave's > said. There've been no other specific proposals for changes to the > text. > > Franck suggested gathering data on whether DKIM has been useful. I > responded to that, saying that I don't think it's a necessary issue > for chartering at this stage. Agreement or disagreement with that > would be useful. Not sure about gathering data, but I don't want the group to loose track of the end goal of all these tools, which is to help fight spam/abuse. I know this is not the direct goal of DKIM, we had this discussion ;) > > Bill suggested looking at extensions for additional signature > delegation, Michael Hammer agreed, and a thread branched off from > there. Is that still an active consideration for the charter, or > not? > Charles wants to see something more about guidance for mailing > lists. > Is that an active consideration? I think guidance for mailing lists is needed. Postmasters will just implement blindly tools like spamassassin and others. > > Some have opined that it's even too early to consider taking the base > DKIM protocol to Draft Standard; let's make sure we have consensus on > that point, one way or the other. > > I'd like to settle very soon on what, if anything, to do about > re-chartering. Please address my specific points, above, so we can > get there. And please keep the discussion focused on the charter, > without going into lengthy discussion of details of the work. > > Barry, as chair > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
