On Wednesday, September 01, 2010 08:23:19 am John Levine wrote: > >> At this point, unless we can cut back the MLM document to stick to > >> items that we have consensus about, e.g., that it is typical for > >> signatures applied to incoming mail not to verify after a message > >> passes through an MLM, and that it would be nice if a list or its MTA > >> signed its outgoing mail, I don't think we will produce anything that > >> is useful to anyone. > > > >If that's all we can say, I'd say don't bother. I don't see much value in > >the DKIM working group saying it thinks mail should be signed by DKIM. > > "e.g." means "such as" or "for example." > > I expect there's a fair amount we agree on. Maybe it's enough to be > worth documenting, maybe not, but I think it would be more productive > to see what we agree on rather than trying to force our pet projects > into the document. > > I'll cheerfully give up references to S/MIME, if other people will > give up on telling software developers how to rewrite MLMs to do > things they've never done before. > > Don't forget that an experimental RFC is the accepted way to document > a paper design to see if it gets any traction, as the EAI group did > with various ways to represent non-ASCII e-mail addresses.
Since things to do to get signatures to survive on mailing lists doesn't seem to be on your list of stuff we agree on, what else is? I know you said e.g., but given what I understand you to not agree on, I'm not sure what else is left. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
