On 30/05/18 06:09, Brandon Long via dmarc-discuss wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:10 AM Alessandro Vesely via dmarc-discuss
<dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org <mailto:dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org>> wrote:
I know ARC proponents don't want author's domains to sign ARC-0,
but never
understood why. Anyway, ordinary forwarders will need to ARC sign
forwarded
messages too, which includes pretty much all mail sites. The
latter is *not* a
slow-moving data set. It grows steadily.
No, ordinary forwarders which break DKIM need to ARC sign. If you're
just an ordinary forwarder, why break DKIM?
Plenty of ordinary forwarders break DKIM:
* Essentially all customer-controlled Exchange servers. (Office 365
fixed this a while back for server-side rules, but this has not made
its way into customer-controlled installations generally, or perhaps
not even into the product.)
* Plenty of ordinary forwarders add footers, strip attachments.
Fortunately virus scanner spam has largely stopped.
* Etc.
I have previously singled out MIMEsweeper for gratuitous re-encoding of
body parts and am pleased to report that my doing so led to that problem
being fixed. 1 down, 999 to go... Cases like this will appear as a small
fraction of the email volume of large receivers, but require a
disproportionately large number of fixes. It may not be 1,000, but I'm
certain that it's hundreds.
- Roland
_______________________________________________
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
