On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:13:02 +0100, Murray S. Kucherawy
<msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com> wrote:
WTF is the point of inserting an A-R header if you are not willing to
take responsibility for what you have done by signing it?
And why should anyone else believe your A-R if you have omitted that
elementary step?
Because, if you've followed the RFC defining it, the border MTA has
removed any others present that could possibly be misinterpreted by
internal agents.
Yes, but that is the MTA at MY border. I would expect the assessor at MY
border to have indicated some degree of suspicion if the A_R header it was
about to remove (before substituting its own) was not included in the
signature that accompanied it.
You're not required to sign them, but it's not a bad idea.
Then why are people on this list not trying to enocourage that good
practice? Indeed, why are they so vociferously trying to DIScourage it?
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html