--On 24 November 2010 09:53:41 -0500 Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org> wrote:
> Ian Eiloart: >> Unless the intermediary co-operates by re-signing, mailing lists can >> break DKIM signatures. Since mailing lists generally use their own >> rfc5321 return paths, SPF failures should not result. Of course, a >> broken DKIM signature is equivalent to none at all. You should not >> reject or discard mail on this basis, but you do lose the ability to >> assign signer domain based reputation to the message. >> >> Unless the intermediary co-operates with SRS, or similar, *forwarding* >> can result in SPF failure. Since forwarders generally don't change the >> message content, DKIM signatures should remain intact. > > Please do not confuse mailing lists with email forwarding. The two > are different things. It is not helpful to take an argument from > one context and use that to "prove" a point in the other context. I'm not confusing the two. DKIM and SPF both permit the use of domain based reputation databases. Unfortunately, both have problems with various paths that emails may take. Fortunately, the problematic paths are different - mailing lists are problematic for one, and forwarding is problematic for the other. My point that DKIM and SPF can complement one another therefore relies on an understanding that mailing lists are not forwarders. > Wietse > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
