Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs
On 10/24/11 10:31 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Ian Eiloart [mailto:iane@sussex.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:24 AM To: Murray S. Kucherawy Cc: mailman-developers@python.org Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs
Isn't "hide" a function of the MUA, not the MLM or MTA? No. "Display" or "Expose" might be a function of the MUA. "Find" might be something that the user does. To hide something is to put it in a location where it's unlikely to be found.
As long as you know that people aren't looking there (and they're not), putting information in a header (other than to, from subject and date) is "hiding". My point is that if using header fields is the right way to encode this information in a protocol sense, then the issue is really that the MUAs need to expose that information somehow.
I have some trouble with the assertion that making the MLM and MTA do what we all agree is the right thing to do constitutes "hiding".
The problem is that the Core Mail RFCs (822/2822) doesn't say that the headers are the right place to put this info, and thus it can't be assumed that MUA should display such a header. The LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE header is only defined in RFC 2369, but not the core RFC 2822 (Internet message format), as such the existence of MUA that don't understand it can be reasonable expected (as is seen in practice). The conflict in needs between DKIM and MLM becomes a legal issue is some jurisdictions. The LAW (which trumps any RFC) demands a conspicuous notice, so the MLM must provide it. The header provided in RFC 2369 is not sufficient due to too many MUAs not complying with it. This makes DKIM suggestion to only use it (and not add the link to the message) actually illegal in some places.
Since the MLM were around first (and the law), this becomes a defect in DKIM.
participants (1)
-
Richard Damon