On 2/8/07 10:27 AM, "Barry Warsaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Me too. Here's my discussion on the topic, including a concrete > proposal for Mailman 2.1.10 and 2.2/3.0. Feel free to comment on the > wiki on in this thread. > > http://wiki.list.org/x/OgM > Looks good to me. " IOW, a valid signed List-ID header should be indication enough that all other signatures were subject to breakage because of mailing list garbling" Probably should be "...all prior signatures..." not "...other...". --- Since the public key for a DKIM signature comes from DNS (as I understand it), an administrative detail is that a mailing list operator has to provide for the key's existence in order for Mailman's attempt to sign to be effective. --John _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
