I suspect with ARC coming up, leaving traces of broken DKIM headers will be useful.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Al Iverson <aiver...@spamresource.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Jim Popovitch <jim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:46 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > >>>> IMHO, Mailman should strip the existing DKIM header and Mailop.org > should sign anew. > >>> > >>>Yes! That is the perfect and proper way, despite some rants by less > >>>experienced mailinglist operators. > >> > >> Hi. I've been running mailing lists since the late 1970s and having > >> actually read the DKIM specs and written a fair amount of DKIM code, I > >> know that stripping signatures makes no difference unless someone's > >> mail filters are breathtakingly broken. > > > > But leaving the DKIM signatures provides what actual value with modern > > MLMs (i.e. not .forward files, etc.) ? > > I'm going to say it's an irrelevant question, because even just the > headers that I excerpted in the thread are enough to suggest that John > and Google might disagree on what constitutes broken. > > Regards, > Al > > -- > Al Iverson > www.aliverson.com > (312)725-0130 > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
