On 2017 Feb 12, 02:33, Benny Pedersen wrote: > Josh Good skrev den 2017-02-12 01:53: > > >2. Why this mailing list has never used subject tags, and very early > >in its infancy it even stopped injecting a footer into the posts? It's > >obvious that was not done to accommodate for DMARC, so why was it done > >this way? > > this will break dkim
It would break the original sender's DKIM, if any. But then the mailing list host could DKIM sign all messages just before sending them to the list subscribers. Because the original sender's DKIM may or may not exist, the mailing list doing its own DKIM signing is the only way to make that list posts are tamper-proof at all times. > >3. Why is this mailing list's host not signing with DKIM the posts > >which > >it is distributing to the subscribers? > > its good to see its not needed if dkim is sender signed, and the > maillist preserve that signing, so no need for more signing of maillist, > and another possible reason if not signed by sender why would it make > sense to se maillist sign it ? In the post-Snowden era, cryptographically signing ALL is the way to go. Remember, NSA not only "spies", it also "impersonates" when it needs to do so (if it can do it). So yes, it makes sense for a mailing list to DKIM sign the posts it sends to its subscribers. Regards, -- Josh Good
