> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] > On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 8:37 AM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-04.txt > > I have two issues: > > *scope* > Apparently, there is consensus that "Discussion lists and broadcast > lists are not the same thing" [WV]. Section 3.2 exemplifies > newsletters and bulk marketing mail as "authoring" MLM modes. In > facts, most of the advice covers mailing lists proper. Should > ESP-lists be removed from the I-D entirely, e.g. by saying they are > not covered right after their definition? > > [WV] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2010q3/014474.html
Section 3.2 says: Much of this document focuses on the resending class of MLM as it has the most direct conflict operationally with DKIM. Do we need to be more forceful than that? > *re-signing* > After recent discussions, it seems inadvisable that "A DKIM-aware > resending MLM is encouraged to sign the entire message". In > particular, section 5.7 may suggest that fields that had not been > signed by the author domain neither be signed by the MLM, unless the > MLM itself introduced or modified them. That's not a bad idea. Any support or objections from others? > Generic advice, such as the possibility of dropping unsigned fields, > will probably be added to 4871bis. It may or may not be worth > repeating it here. I hadn't seen any discussion about that for 4871bis. Can you point me to such a posting? _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
