On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 7:06 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > It seems to me that this addresses the same issues that the list > mutation stuff does with a lot less complication, and without having > to enumerate all of the ways that a list might change the message. It > only assumes that the list won't change To, From, Date, or Message-ID, > which matches my list experience. The list can make arbitrary changes > to the message body, but if it does, you know who to blame. >
That last sentence is basically what I said about both of my drafts, and that logic was shot down. Once you've decided you don't like the arbitrary changes, you know who to blame, but you still have to decide what you like and what you don't. > As a lazy list operator, I also like the fact that it doesn't require > lists to do anything different from what they should be doing now, > sign their outgoing mail. Senders put additional weak signatures on > mail sent to addresses that might be mailing lists, verifiers have to > upgrade to understand new signatures. Note that smelling like a > mailing list is not the same as whitelisting mailing lists. > "might be mailing lists" sounds like a place for heuristics. How would you identify an address that might be a list, or content that's likely destined for a list? The "-l" suffix isn't that common these days. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
