On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:12:02 +0100, SM <s...@resistor.net> wrote: > At 11:12 29-04-10, Michael Thomas wrote: >> With respect to DKIM, anybody who filters based on broken signatures >> without >> any (or little) other input pretty much deserves the false positive >> rate they're >> complaining about. > > This mailing list removes the DKIM signature of the poster. ...
and that is precisely the cause of the problem. Nobody should EVER remove a signaturre (unless it was one they wrote themselves). The correct procedure is to add an Authentication-Results to say that the signature was good on arrival (assuming it was). Ideally, it should then be resigned (with the A-R included in the signature). Then the recipient has some evidence to assist in his evaluation. In fact, the changes made by this list are easily reversible, if someone wants to try to reverse them and check the original signature. But he cannot do that with a signature that has been removed. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: ...@clerew.man.ac.uk snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
