On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Steve Atkins wrote:
Putting it in the List-Unsubscribe header that's not displayed
to recipients is pretty much equivalent to putting it in the X-Bamboozle
header that's not displayed to recipients when it comes to displaying
legally required content to recipients.
And there's the rub. The problem is that a major threat we anticipate,
is that should a means be added to append a footer without breaking the
signature, bad guys will find short legitimate messages and replay them
with a footer containing spam.
Requiring the list garbage (and thus the spam) to be in X-Bamboozle:
headers would make this problem far less likely, since forgery recipients
would not likely see the spam. But as you say, it is not adequate for the
lawyers. They demand the same visibility a spammer would want.
DKIM has the unfortunate problem of coming late to the party. If DKIM
had got there first, before it became near universal to add footers,
mailing lists would have been faced with unacceptable delivery rates when
they tried, and it would be seen as completely *their fault*. If the
lawyers did persist, all the list-managers could do is shut down until all
their clients hand over their keys....
But DKIM presently has the lawyer's car parked in front of its driveway,
and can't complain because that car parked before the house was built.
---- Michael Deutschmann <michael(_at_)talamasca(_dot_)ocis(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html