----- Original Message ----- > From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superu...@gmail.com> > To: "Franck Martin" <fra...@peachymango.org> > Cc: "Dave Crocker" <dcroc...@gmail.com>, dmarc@ietf.org > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:03:16 PM > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: New Version Notification for > draft-kucherawy-dkim-delegate-00.txt
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Franck Martin < fra...@peachymango.org > > wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Franck Martin < fra...@peachymango.org > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > This is interesting, however it seems to me that DMARC should be more > > > > aware > > > > of it if used. > > > > > > > > > Why? This is a way of satisfying the alignment requirement on the DKIM > > > side. > > > DMARC doesn't need to know it's there. The same is true of ATPS, for > > > example. > > > > > Sure but you have a strong DKIM signature and a weak DKIM signature, using > > about the same domain, it is like the strong DKIM signature did not > > exist... > > Assuming by "strong DKIM signature" you mean the originator signature that > covers the whole message, then given the MLM is going to invalidate it, it > basically doesn't exist. Yes but are you assuming you only put the weak DKIM signature, when you specifically know you are emailing a mailing list? Or what about a receiver which is not a mailing list? You are just allowing better replay of the message, if you put any weak DKIM signature in the message... Unless the weak DKIM signature is constrained to a specific usage.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
