>a) Section 5.1 currently advocates a warning to new subscribers to an >MLM with a highly restrictive ADSP policy. Should this be stronger, >such as "a warning is advised, and full denial should be considered"?
Yes, since the damage from ADSP can affect other subscribers. >b) Would it be a good idea to suggest MLM implementers make signing >of submissions into a user-configurable option? ... Since we don't have any experience, I don't think we should be telling list managers how to verify submissions. The text in 5.2 and 5.3 looks fine to me. > I think there was some text in there already about the idea of >bifurcating the list's output into a signed stream and an unsigned >stream What a bad idea. The list's output is one mail stream, as section 5.6 says. The current language looks correct to me. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
