On Monday, June 09, 2014 8:01 AM [GMT+1=CET], Matt Simerson wrote: > On Jun 8, 2014, at 10:32 PM, Brandon Long <bl...@google.com> wrote: > > > The message is already corrupted, or there wouldn't be a problem to > > be solved. > > When the message arrives at the list, it's unlikely that it's already > corrupted. What has been described is corrupting the From header by > the same entity that is about to break the DKIM signature by altering > the the message. This should be called the "break it worse" method.
So, when the MLM relaying the message adds a subject tag, that alteration is a welcomed "decoration" - but when it changes the mailbox in the Header-From to itself, it is an unwelcomed "corruption". I can understand the welcomed vs unwelcomed thing, but I do not agree with calling the alteration "decoration" in one place but "corruption" in the other. Loading the language in such a way is asking for a given conclusion even before the debate has started. That's not fair (I'm not predicating that from you, Matt, just talking in general terms). Regards, J.Gomez _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
