> On Apr 10, 2023, at 12:55 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> I think the one thing we haven't discussed is: Could the 80-20 rule apply
> here? That is, if we start off with something like what
> draft-kucherawy-dkim-transform proposed (or even a trivial subset of it),
> might it make
> On Apr 10, 2023, at 12:55 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>
> I think the one thing we haven't discussed is: Could the 80-20 rule apply
> here? That is, if we start off with something like what
> draft-kucherawy-dkim-transform proposed (or even a trivial subset of it),
> might it make
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 9:55 AM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 8:15 AM John Levine wrote:
>
>> > For certain
>> >constrained but hopefully reasonable scenarios of mailing list
>> >modifications, we might be able to distinguish the sources of content.
>>
>> People have been
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 8:15 AM John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Wei Chuang said:
> >1) We know that a sender intends to send a message down some path that may
> >include a mailing list, that got to me safely. This is to avoid DKIM
> >replay and FROM spoofing attacks.
>
> I think we can
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 8:15 AM John Levine wrote:
> > For certain
> >constrained but hopefully reasonable scenarios of mailing list
> >modifications, we might be able to distinguish the sources of content.
>
> People have been suggesting this forwver, but it really doesn't scale.
> There are a
It appears that Wei Chuang said:
>1) We know that a sender intends to send a message down some path that may
>include a mailing list, that got to me safely. This is to avoid DKIM
>replay and FROM spoofing attacks.
I think we can do that by looking at the To/Cc addresses to check if
they
