[ Replies sent to ietf-822 since this is unrelated to DMARC ] In article <ZxWD3Yo-oiRI8Rq8k9H-7vG3Rgogp5lhNRwW3JcDUpFjHlfxgubW8rC5g4jQKWnhFazItAexGXsB4xMb69mZg2jRtuXEC7l1GxfmqdBbCOU=@emersion.fr> you write: >I've submitted a draft for a new Authentication-Results method a while >back [1]. I'd like to get some feedback. > >My use-case is: on a mailing list system [2], I'd like to display PGP >signature status, if a PGP signature is present. ...
>[1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ser-authentication-results-openpgp/ >[2]: https://lists.sr.ht >Does this sounds like something worth doing? Maybe, but probably not. DKIM is intended as a signature for messages in transit, applied as a message leaves its sending system and verified as it arrives at the recipient system. The sorts of changs made by list managers often break DKIM signatures, causing all sorts of excitement when DMARC is involved. PGP signatures (and S/MIME signatures) are normally applied and verified by the end-user mail programs. They're in the message body and the changes that list managers typically make, tagging the signature or adding body headers or footers, are unlikely to break a PGP signature. Or to put it another way, if your A-R header said the PGP signature on the message contents was good, but the end user found it was bad, that would suggest something was screwed up, not normal mailing list processing. R's, John PS: It's not unreasonble for a list manager to use a PGP signature to verify that it should forward a message, but there's not much use to adding a header saying it did so. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
