On May 8, 2011, at 11:16 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Franck Martin [mailto:fmar...@linkedin.com] >> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 9:12 PM >> To: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org >> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-08.txt >> >>>> "such as a signing and author subdomain {DKIM 12}" -> "such as a signing >>>> and author subdomain {DKIM 12} or a totally different domain" >>> >>> I'm on the fence on this one. Does anyone else have an opinion? >> >> It is a best practice document so the full realm of possibilities should >> be included. > > It doesn't make general sense to list all possibilities in something that's > supposed to espouse a best practice. Although you're right that it could be > any domain, I think the best practice when it comes to creating mail streams > is the subdomain option.
Agreed, that seems to be the best currently-deployed practice. >>> Do you have some specific text you want to propose here? I couldn't >>> imagine any based on this comment. >> >> Yes it is hard, because we don't want to endorse any product/service. Let >> me try. >> >> "Some MTA senders and receivers can enter in bilateral agreements or via a >> third party to receive out of band reports on failed signatures." > > That's true, but is it advice specific to the MLM environment? And is 5.2 > the right place to talk about this? It'd fit nicely into a separate BCP on handling signature failures -- perhaps after there's more widespread operational experience with draft-ietf-dkim-reporting? >>>> 5.3 postmaster should inform their users that messages are likely to be >>>> discarded if sent via a MLM. >>> >>> Is this inbound or outbound? I assume inbound given the title of the >>> section. But again I couldn't concoct text in my head to match your >>> remark. Can you propose some? >> >> I thinking outbound. As this document is to give postmasters a quick >> start, then it is good to mention if you choose ADSP, there is "no way" >> the message can go via a mailing list and survive. I thought it was >> possible before reading this RFC that you could tweak a MLM in a manner >> that ADSP would not break, but I realize while possible it is absolutely >> impractical and as you say a cooperating MLM better drop the message out >> front. >> >> What I'm worried is that it does not set a mindset with other email >> policies that can be created. > > I think it's safer to let the MLM operator decide, since that person knows > whether or not the list software will tend to break signatures on messages it > re-sends. Or if they don't know, this will encourage them to find out. -- J.D. Falk the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
