"Dave CROCKER" wrote:
>
>
>On 8/2/2010 11:34 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>> A "-1" on ever altering the From: field for any reason other than special
>> requirements of the people running a specific mailing list.
>
>
>A +1 in support of that -1.
>
>The view that modifying the From: is helpful has n
On 8/2/2010 11:34 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
> A "-1" on ever altering the From: field for any reason other than special
> requirements of the people running a specific mailing list.
A +1 in support of that -1.
The view that modifying the From: is helpful has no empirical basis. I'll
claim
tha
On 8/1/10 3:22 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> Some offlist feedback I wanted to bounce to the list to gauge consensus:
>
> a) Section 5.1 currently advocates a warning to new subscribers to an
> MLM with a highly restrictive ADSP policy. Should this be stronger,
> such as “a warning is advise
On 08/02/2010 11:21 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I think this is worth considering. In discussions with one of the developers
> of a major open source MLM, he mentioned to me that they've had feature
> requests over the years to alter From due to privacy/spambot harvesting
> reasons, so this isn't
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Feedback on draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists for
>> discussion
>>
>>> c) A "-1" to the idea of altering From: to cope with ADSP; the reason
>> given:
>>> "This presumes endpoints will understand a DKIM-related From:-altered
IM List
> > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Feedback on draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists for
> > discussion
> >
> > > c) A "-1" to the idea of altering From: to cope with ADSP; the reason
> >
> > given:
> > > "This presumes endpoints will understand
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Macdonald
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 10:53 AM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Feedback on draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists for
> discu
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Some offlist feedback I wanted to bounce to the list to gauge consensus:
>
>
>
> a) Section 5.1 currently advocates a warning to new subscribers to an MLM
> with a highly restrictive ADSP policy. Should this be stronger, such as “a
> wa
org
>> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Feedback on draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists for
>> discussion
>>
>>> b) Would it be a good idea to suggest MLM implementers make signing
>> of
>>> submissions into a user-configurable option?
>>
>> Which signing are you
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Black
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 4:48 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Feedback on draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglist
On 08/01/2010 03:22 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Some offlist feedback I wanted to bounce to the list to gauge consensus:
>
> a) Section 5.1 currently advocates a warning to new subscribers to an
> MLM with a highly restrictive ADSP policy. Should this be stronger, such
> as “a warning is advis
On Monday 02 August 2010 08:22:15 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Some offlist feedback I wanted to bounce to the list to gauge consensus:
>
> a) Section 5.1 currently advocates a warning to new subscribers to an MLM
> with a highly restrictive ADSP policy. Should this be stronger, such as
> "a warn
>a) Section 5.1 currently advocates a warning to new subscribers to an
>MLM with a highly restrictive ADSP policy. Should this be stronger,
>such as "a warning is advised, and full denial should be considered"?
Yes, since the damage from ADSP can affect other subscribers.
>b) Would it be a good
Some offlist feedback I wanted to bounce to the list to gauge consensus:
a) Section 5.1 currently advocates a warning to new subscribers to an MLM with
a highly restrictive ADSP policy. Should this be stronger, such as "a warning
is advised, and full denial should be considered"?
b) Would it b
14 matches
Mail list logo
