On 2014-11-09, Stephen Harris <lists@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 05:58:53PM -0800, Keith Keller wrote:
>> The fundamental reason is because Mailman is rewriting the headers in an
>> incompatible way. It is not his site's usage of DKIM. This is a known
>> issue with Mailman. (I used to have a good link explaining the issue,
>> but can't find it now; if I find it later I'll post it.)
>
> So we have a 20-year old piece of technology ("mailman") and a modern
> proposal ("DKIM")... and somehow it's mailman's fault. Uh huh.
Mailman is by my reckoning only about 15 years old, and DKIM has been
around for about a decade. So I'm not really convinced by your argument
here.
Plus, it's not like the Mailman folks themselves are blaming DKIM.
Here's a page they wrote up.
http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/DKIM
"Make no mistake though, DKIM cannot be ignored"
I haven't looked very hard, but I haven't found anything authoritative
on Mailman vs. DKIM more recent than 2012 (which itself means they've
been thinking about it for a long time; the wiki doc talks about another
document written in 2009).
> The problem, ultimately, is with senders with a "reject" policy published.
> DKIM is not compatible with internet email today, and so mail from those
> senders _will_ be rejected.
Well, someone's gotta be first, because there's no way we'll get
everyone agree to switch over on a given date. If Yahoo and Google are
doing it they're forcing the issue sooner rather than later. I'm not
sure that's a bad thing.
--keith
--
kkeller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
