On Tuesday 31 August 2010 06:53:59 Jeff Macdonald wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:17 PM, J.D. Falk > > <jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.org> wrote: > > So what we SHOULD be arguing about (those of us interested in forward > > progress) is whether draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02 meets the > > documentation goal Rolf described above. > > Nits: > > existing misspelled below: > > o What are the tradeoffs regarding having an MLM remove exisitng > DKIM signatures prior to re-posting the message? > > Section 3.3 - last paragraph, "the" misspelled - "before hte message" > > Below are my comments on draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02. I have > caught up with the mailing list posts as of today (well, within the > last 3 hours or so), but I haven't retained in my head what others > have already said. If some of this has discussed already, I apologize. > I think we are very close to Rolf's stated goals. > > > Section 1.3 - I'd change "bulk mail sender" to just "sender". I have > trouble seeing how any bulk sender would end up sending to a MLM. > > Section 3.1: > > author - is it really defined that way in email-arch? That definition > would mean an ESP would be considered the author. As an ESP we > construct messages from content objects created by our clients. I'm > having trouble with the word "constructed" in that section. Perhaps > "The agent that actually created the content of the message....". I > really don't like that either. I'd like to say the agent that authored > the message. :) Think in terms of books. > > signer - Last sentence: A signer may also be same agent as an > originator or author. > > 3.2 MLM Output: why is the MLM considered the author? Shouldn't it be > the originator? > > "consuming the author's copy of the message and creating its own." > seems a little off to me. I get what it is trying to say, but I think > a gentler view would be to view it as a newspaper. Each article has > it's own author and the newspaper presents a group of articles along > with a other interesting content. So maybe "consuming the author's > copy of the message and producing a mailing list version of that > message." > > 3.3 Is the reference to John L needed? :) > > "There reportedly still exist a few scattered mailing lists in > operation that are actually run manually by a human list manager, > whose workings in preparing a message for distribution could include > the above or even some other changes." > > Section 5.7 > > "A signing MLM is advised to add a List-Post: header field (see > [LIST-URLS]) using a DNS domain matching what will be used in the > "d=" tag of the DKIM signature it will add to the new message...." > > I'd remove this paragraph. I strongly believe that d= needs stands on > its own. Anything that promotes the notion of that a class of d= is > more or less than another because it matches some other header field > or not should be discouraged.
I'm in favour of keeping this paragraph. A small bit of advice, like the current -02, provides some hope of a small bit consistancy for those writing receiving agents (e.g. 5.9 / 5.10) that want to do some intelligient processing without adding with complexity. Less (options) is more (value). _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
