> Iâd argue that the practices for forwarding fall under the > aliasing-style MLMs as the mechanism is identical. Perhaps we could > say so here.
I'll bet I can get a 50 message thread going arguing about whether and how the bounce address should change, with at least 10 of the messages pointing out that DKIM doesn't look at the bounce address. You are of course correct that they both have the same implications for DKIM (none, unless the signer is actively perverse), but when has that stopped us? R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
