[Mailman-Developers] dkim-signature headers

[Barry Warsaw]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Feb 7, 2007, at 11:40 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Barry Warsaw writes:
>
>> Part of me agrees that this is what you'd like to see, but my gut
>> tells me that this will never work in practice.  First, no one but an
>> email geek will even understand the question, let alone know how to
>> answer it,
>
> Agreed.  It's a stalking horse for the BCP; for anybody who's not an
> email geek, I have this simple advice regarding the BCP:
>
>                          Run away!  Run away!

LOL.

>> and second, I fear that most u/i's and policy engines will
>> boil this down to a very simple choice for the user:
>>
>>      This message is unverified
>>
>>      [Accept] [Discard]
>>      (o) Do the same for all similar messages
>
> Make sure no spam gets through your double opt-in list, and you're
> golden, no?

Ideally yeah.  But python.org does get reported occasionally since  
while I think we do a pretty good job of blocking most spam, some  
nasties gated from Usenet still get through.  Sigh.

(Today's rant: overly aggressive blackholes that block /all/ cable  
and DSL IPs that reverse to the ISP doman.  For FSM's sake, I have a  
static IP address already!)

> Similar is *not* going to reduce to "is unverified"; too many
> grandmothers will lose messages from the grandkids.

You might be right about that.
- -Barry

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iQCVAwUBRcoAaXEjvBPtnXfVAQIxrwP/XpboY8mzsbw5LG9L+8Un/M4ogwgP4FgO
6JYNwgaMUAl4cWb1uXBgVuICUEP9LJMwj24SnqENV5HSxDWL5ui2jLj4psPS0h3U
9JXVT/gOjrW2Mr6XeGpVhDO5Zwe8I6obJU4zy/Iey7cqkB+uRyVK+00R5DGmvvo+
cKtcxXYv5HI=
=W+TD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----