Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-04.txt

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:36:39 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 11:15 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-04.txt
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Domain Keys Identified Mail Working
> Group of the IETF.
> 
> 
> 	Title           : DKIM And Mailing Lists
> 	Author(s)       : M. Kucherawy
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-04.txt
> 	Pages           : 29
> 	Date            : 2010-10-15
> [...]

This version takes into account the latest feedback.  As there hasn't been much since the 4871bis debates took over, it seemed like a good point to post a revision.

Chiefly the feedback was from Charles pointing out that the verifier/receiver filtering action was not being represented consistently.  The rest was largely typos.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:15:03 -0700 (PDT)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Keys Identified Mail Working Group of the IETF.

DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) allows an administrative mail
domain (ADMD) to assume some responsibility for a message.  As the
industry has now gained some deployment experience, the goal for this
document is to explore the use of DKIM for scenarios that include
intermediaries, such as Mailing List Managers (MLMs).

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-04.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 17:36:47 +0200

On 15/Oct/10 20:36, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> This version takes into account the latest feedback.  As there
> hasn't been much since the 4871bis debates took over, it seemed
> like a good point to post a revision.
>
> Chiefly the feedback was from Charles pointing out that the
> verifier/receiver filtering action was not being represented
> consistently.  The rest was largely typos.

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

*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.

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.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:21:52 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 8:37 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-04.txt
> 
> I have two issues:
> 
> *scope*

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?

> MLM itself introduced or modified them.

That's not a bad idea.  Any support or objections from others?

> will probably be added to 4871bis.  It may or may not be worth

I hadn't seen any discussion about that for 4871bis.  Can you point me to such a posting?

---

From: "J.D. Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:07:01 -0600

> not covered right after their definition?

I think it's important to point out the differences.