A DKIM-aware resending MLM is encouraged to sign the entire message
as it arrived, especially including the original signatures.
Would I as an MLM want to resign a message that I received that itself
was not signed? Do I want to confer more authority to that message than
is
Lists never have had DKIM to deal with, so they've never had the option to
make any such promise. The signature lends the MLM's credibility to the
message, which in turn could hurt the MLM's credibility if it turns out to be
signing garbage. How else would a reputation for signers work?
John,
Yes, of course. The signature means that this message really truly
came from the mailing list, as opposed to being a random piece of spam
that happened to resemble list mail. What else would it mean? Lists
have never promised that the original sender was real nor that
messages
--On 17 May 2010 11:47:11 +0200 Serge Aumont serge.aum...@cru.fr wrote:
ADSP = discardable means : the domain encourages the recipient(s) to
discard it.. So a pretty MLM should discard thoses messages unless it
is able to brodcast it to subscribers without DKIM signature alteration.
No,
--On 18 May 2010 10:40:05 +0100 Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk wrote:
--On 17 May 2010 11:47:11 +0200 Serge Aumont serge.aum...@cru.fr wrote:
ADSP = discardable means : the domain encourages the recipient(s) to
discard it.. So a pretty MLM should discard thoses messages unless it
is
On 17/May/10 13:36, Eliot Lear wrote:
Section 1.3
FBL? What a horrible misuse of an already common term. Is there a cite
for this or can we change it?
Would you expand on that, please? In particular, it doesn't seem
misused to me, according, e.g., to wikipedia's definition[1]
Feedback
On 18/May/10 07:08, John Levine wrote:
A DKIM-aware resending MLM is encouraged to sign the entire message
as it arrived, especially including the original signatures.
Would I as an MLM want to resign a message that I received that itself
was not signed? Do I want to confer more
On 18 May 2010, John Levine wrote:
Agreed. We have no idea what all means in practice, other than perhaps
an ill-defined small decrement to some sort of reputation if the signature
isn't present.
If I were in charge, I'd retire all, to be replaced with two new
options with clearer semantics.
If I were in charge, I'd retire all, to be replaced with two new
options with clearer semantics. One would be the except-mlist I
proposed a few months back.
I don't understand what verifiers are supposed to do with that. How
is an MTA doing the DKIM verification and filtering supposed know
It'll be the one that's not broken, I presume. If there's more than one
unbroken signature, I guess the signing domain might want to match the
list-id header.
Why is it important to match signatures? If there's a valid signature
with a good rep, deliver the mail. If the mail turns out to
--On 18 May 2010 14:55:14 +0200 Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote:
On 18/May/10 07:08, John Levine wrote:
A DKIM-aware resending MLM is encouraged to sign the entire
message as it arrived, especially including the original
signatures.
Would I as an MLM want to resign a
On 5/18/10 10:16 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
It'll be the one that's not broken, I presume. If there's more than one
unbroken signature, I guess the signing domain might want to match the
list-id header.
Why is it important to match signatures? If there's a valid signature
with a good
On May 17, 2010, at 11:08 PM, John Levine wrote:
I like Murray's draft, and I hope that we can resist the urge to add
vast amounts of non-productive complication to it.
+1
Likewise, I hope that we can resist the urge to re-argue all the old arguments
about ADSP. This BCP won't fix those
On 18 May 2010, John Levine wrote:
If I were in charge, I'd retire all, to be replaced with two new
options with clearer semantics. One would be the except-mlist I
proposed a few months back.
I don't understand what verifiers are supposed to do with that. How
is an MTA doing the DKIM
On 5/18/10 1:46 PM, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
On 18 May 2010, John Levine wrote:
If I were in charge, I'd retire all, to be replaced with two new
options with clearer semantics. One would be the except-mlist I
proposed a few months back.
I don't understand what verifiers are
On Tue, 18 May 2010, Douglas Otis wrote:
Why would you see rejectable as being different from all assertions?
Just about everyone thinks EITHER that rejectable would be redundant
with all, OR that except-mlist would be redundant with all. But
narrowing all's meaning down to two choices is not
On 5/18/10 5:28 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
That doesn't seem to be about mailing lists.
I don't see that we're re-opening ADSP now and we're not
chartered for that, so I don't really see much point in
this discussion.
So perhaps take that discussion offlist?
Stephen,
Deprecating all
That doesn't seem to be about mailing lists.
I don't see that we're re-opening ADSP now and we're not
chartered for that, so I don't really see much point in
this discussion.
So perhaps take that discussion offlist?
Stephen.
On 05/19/2010 01:18 AM, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
On Tue, 18 May
1. except-mlist is primarily for the benefit of vanity domain
recipients who have programmed their MTA with knowledge of exactly which
lists they are subscribed to.
If you already know what lists you're subscribed to, why would you do
anything other than accept all the mail from the lists?
R's,
19 matches
Mail list logo
