John Levine wrote:
A more interesting case to consider is acm.org style forwarders,
where the forwarder is, in many ways, the final destination, and where
the address at the forwarder is "owned" by the final recipient, and
where they will likely ask for transactional mail of the sort that
senders might consider discardable be sent.
Our working hypothesis has been that most forwarders of that sort won't
break the signature, so it's not a problem.
FWIW, this highlights the difference between an "Alias" and most other
Mediators, a la RFC 5598. An Alias modifies a portion of the message -- SMTP
RCPT-TO -- that is not covered by a DKIM signature. Hence it does not break it.
This of course does not mean that an Alias Mediator should not (also) add a
DKIM
signature.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html