On 08/05/2011 20:11, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 8/5/2011 2:56 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >> To me it boils down to you saying in effect, "Here is my way of working >> with e-mail, and I'd like the IETF to support it." If there was a way >> that we could do that which had no impact on people who don't work that >> way (such as the List-Id header) then I'd say go for it! But for those >> of us who already filter our mail into folders these [tags] are useless >> clutter that take up valuable screen real estate. > > > Doug, > > Perhaps you missed the part about this being common practice, including > for other IETF mailing lists? Why yes Dave, this is my first time writing an e-mail, or participating in a, what do you call them? Mailing list? So thanks for pointing that out to me. > You are already suffering with the useless clutter. The incremental > pain for you is going to be nil. That's the argument of someone who thinks that the thing proposed is a good idea. If you believed it to be a bad idea I'm sure that you wouldn't be suggesting that we add to the incremental pain. >> If they break dkim that's a whole 'nother category of problems. > > DKIM is designed for to deal with one posting and one delivery. Mailing > lists take delivery and re-post. For almost all scenarios, DKIM was not > intended to survive re-posting. I wasn't referring to the post from the originator to the list, I was referring to the message posted from the list. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf