On Wed 29/May/2024 19:22:54 +0200 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> said:
I did try and use it. You have to be careful to put the subject tag on new
messages or write /Re:/ in the right place. You must not sign MIME-Version:
and other fields that the MLM writes anew (yes, also Content-Type:). Oh, and
never send multipart (HTML) messages. With such limitations, l= does sometimes
deliver enough robustness for a signature to survive through a MLM. Unless the
MLM transforms the whole stuff to base64, that is.
Or it changes the MIME boundary string, or it puts text at the front
of the body, or it changes the subject or any of the other signed
headers, or it does any of a hundred other things that lists do.
Yes, I didn't mean to be exhaustive. I only recounted my experience when I did
try it, on this list in 2011.
There are certainly some cases where a signature with l= will still be
valid after the message goes through a list, but it's unpredictable
and fragile so no sensible person would count on it.
That's more or less what I wrote.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
