--On 17 August 2010 19:14:30 +0000 John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
>> I'm trying to get the same goal by recommending adding some >> non-artisicly specified form of a "list: mlm.example" display so its >> more evident to the user without percentage hacks. > > I must be missing something. What does this have to do with DKIM? > > If this were important, why don't MUAs look for the already standard > List-ID header, regardless of whether it's signed? In my experience, > nearly all of the mail that makes it through existing spam filters and > has a List-ID header is really from a list. Yes, I think that's my experience too: nearly all. Unfortunately, I had to disable a filter which would file an email in lists/listname and automatically create the mailbox if necessary. I ended up with more mailboxes created by spam than by genuine list emails. So, while most messages with a list-id header were genuine, most distinct list-ids that I saw were not. I guess it would be nice if list servers could use OAuth to authenticate my subscription requests against my mail infrastructure, and then my servers would recognise and record the request. Then it could treat messages from the list with a higher trust level, and -for example- file them accordingly. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html