On 08 Apr 2015 17:21:12 EDT, "John R Levine" <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
> > Are these not well-defined rules, in the same vein that canonicalizations > > are? That's certainly the intent here. > > They are, but they're not useful in the way that the existing ones are. > > The existing ones are strict enough that everyone appears to agree that if > the signature validates, it's the same message for a pretty strict version > of "same". These say that it's a message somewhat related to the > original, but "somewhat related" isn't useful in the same binary way that > "same" is. These new well-defined rules provide a mechanical procedure for determining whether the encapsulated message body is the "same", provided that the full message is DKIM-verified. It's arguably more the "same" than a normal mailing list posting with a list trailer added, because the list trailer under these rules will belong to the list's part of the composite message. Only the headers are different, and they were going to be different anyway, given DMARC's strict requirements on the From header. MJA _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
