> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] > On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 4:36 AM > To: DKIM > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for > draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-03 > > Of the points I raised, I see that 4.3 still contains "the verifier is > requested to discard the message". It is, of course, the receiver that > actually does any discarding.
I don't agree, at least not in the architecture I have in mind. The verifier (e.g. a mail plugin of some kind, or an internal function of an MTA) is in a position to conduct rejections as it sits very near the SMTP portion of a delivery. The receiver, more likely an MUA or such, is less likely to have any direct influence. > Also, section 5.6 is still entitled "Pros and Cons of Signature > Removal", > and yet the body of that section contains no "Cons". The first paragraph describes a "pro" of leaving them in (i.e., enabling preservation of chain of responsibility), and the second describes a "con" (i.e., if that's a goal, now the MLM might have to change its behavior to do so). The next paragraph describes a "pro" of removing them, etc. > And also, in 5.7 s/The MLM could re-evaluate exisiting signatures/The > MLM > could re-evaluate existing signatures/. Fixed for the next version. > Evidently, my draft to allow changing the From: has not been > incorporated. > Would it be worthwhile calling a straw poll on that one? It didn't appear to have the support of rough consensus, so it wasn't included. You could indeed request such a poll to see if that's changed. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
