sbp commented on pull request #22: URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-ponymail-foal/pull/22#issuecomment-836487520
There two sets of problems with DKIM-ID: **(1)** The message sent by the poster, the message delivered to the mailing list manager (MLM), the message archived, and the message received by mailing list subscribers may **all** have different DKIM-IDs to one another, especially if [`Received` and `Delivered-To`](https://github.com/apache/incubator-ponymail/pull/517#issuecomment-692167013) were included in the DKIM-ID algorithm. Most MLMs break DKIM by default, which RFC 6377 was written to address, and it may not even be possible to configure some of them to not do that. Moreover, `archiver.py` can be arbitrarily set up to capture any of these potentially differing emails. **(2)** There is no agreement on the DKIM-ID algorithm. Should the `lid` be in the input, or appended to the DKIM-ID always, or appended to the DKIM-ID conditionally (a question that was [attempted](https://github.com/apache/incubator-ponymail/pull/517#issuecomment-703117779) to be resolved [twice](https://github.com/apache/incubator-ponymail/pull/517#issuecomment-720445607) with no response)? Should the `Received` and `Delivered-To` headers be included? What if new essential headers are added to email in future, such as the ARC headers? What if a site manager wants to change the level of deduplication? As [was said](https://github.com/apache/incubator-ponymail/pull/517#issuecomment-691349802) in the previous PR thread: > I think it's vital that we do not implement the a new generator until we are sure that all issues have been addressed. Every change to the algorithm reduces Permalink stability. Also, Foal currently uses an outdated version of the DKIM-ID proposal. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
