Mark Delany wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:18:59PM -0500, Hector Santos allegedly wrote:
From: "Tony Hansen" <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com>
I'm tempted to say: if the mailing list is going to do
*anything* to the message other than act as a simple
reflector, it *must* strip out any existing dkim signature.
What it does after that is up to the mailing list.
This would make sense for certain policies. If the processor is going to
Actually I'm not sure why a list has to do anything in this case. If a
failed signature is the same as no signature, then the very action of
a mutating list has the effect of "stripping out" any existing sig. So
why impose extra work on a list? And why not let the natural course of
existing lists serendipitously "do the right thing"?
This makes sense to me. The main reason I can think of for removing a
previous signature is the effort involved in trying to verify it. But
that's just an optimization.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org