[ietf-dkim] Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists
mike at mtcc.com
Wed Mar 15 08:37:53 PST 2006
Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> I am inclined to agree. However the  behavior is rather common.
>>> So we probably should consider whether it is reasonable to have DKIM
>>> contain features that are intended to allow a signature survive
>>> mailing list transit, when we know that the final result will usually
>> That's why I use the z= option, regardless of what the
>> overly proscriptive -base spec says. I don't think this should
>> in any way be part of the spec though as it is clearly a
>> heuristic and depends greatly upon how much risk a receiver
>> wants to tolerate.
> Use of the option seems like a reasonable idea. However I am not sure
> how it gets used at the validating end.
> That is, I do not see what the expected scenario is, once the difference
> between original Subject and current Subject is detected.
It's all rather simple: if the change is "acceptable", for some value
of "acceptable", you use the z= header instead of the actual header.
Pretty much what Barry outlined.
More information about the ietf-dkim