Removing arc-discuss per suggestion from Barry. On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
> On Wed 11/May/2016 17:29:18 +0200 Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > [... assume ARC-Seal: i=0 still verifies ...] > > > Doesn't the i=1 ARC set also prove the originator was involved? > > No, it doesn't. > > > Yes, AS[1] testifies to the Authenticated-Results of receiving the > message > > from the originator. > > That only proves the first receiver was involved. A final receiver may > trust > its results or not. > What would an AS[0] assertion provide that would not be already asserted by the originator's DKIM-Signature? If AS[1] is untrustworthy (using the term advisedly), but AS[0] still verifies, then presumably the original DKIM-Signature would also still verify and ARC-based information is not needed to have a pass for the DMARC evaluation. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
