On 26 Sep 2010, John R. Levine wrote: > No, of course not. I've already adjusted my list software to put DKIM > list signatures on outgoing mail. It was no big deal. I haven't done > anything with ADSP because, to several decimal places, nobody uses ADSP.
I was suggesting the From: hackery as a substitute for preemptively blocking ADSP-using posters, not as a substitute for adding a List-Id: signature. Although without an "LDSP", List-Id: signing is almost pointless. To benefit, you need to tell the recipient, human-to-human, that your list always signs. But if that communication channel is open, you could just promise not to change the bounce-address domain, and protect that domain with SPF. > What have you done on the lists you run? I don't run any lists. One other important thing: While preemptively blocking "dkim=discardable" is reasonable, to definitively avoid DKIM false positives you must also restrict "dkim=all" posters. A reasonable interpretation of the RFC is that "dkim=all" still indicates that all mail with no signature is bogus -- the difference from "discardable" is that the latter indicates the sender is willing to accept that suspect mail may be silently blackholed (thus making diagnosis of an FP-causing configuration error harder). So an MX capable of validating before responding to CR LF '.' CR LF may treat them identically. ---- Michael Deutschmann <mich...@talamasca.ocis.net> _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html