On Aug 4, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 2:10 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Clarifying DKIM (etc.) expectations for
mailing lists in the face of digests
A mailing list digest does not preserve DKIM signatures from (any
of) the
original messages, and this appears to be acceptable to the community.
Does "acceptable" here mean the community has considered the issue and
elected to accept it the way it is, or the community is unaware of this as a
consideration and operates calmly unaware of it as a possibility?
I'd be surprised if most of the mailing list using or operating community
even considered it a meaningful question.
A DKIM signature is used to track reputation of a mail stream, in order
to make delivery decisions or to make it possible in some cases to
identify someone to contact in case of complaints.
In both cases the only entity anyone is going to care about is the
mailing list, so the question is whether the mailing list DKIM signs
mail, or not. "Maintaining a DKIM signature" isn't a meaningful
concept for digests which are _sent by the list_ and have no other
author. (I'm not touching on whether the same is true for non-digest
mail here).
OTOH, multipart/digest mail attaches the messages as message/rfc822
attachments. I don't see any fundamental reason why you couldn't
pull those out and check the DKIM signatures if you felt so inclined
(though I don't see the value of doing so).
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html