On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 9:03 AM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: >>This list is rather special, as it applies a dkim signature as part of >>the operation of relaying to the subscribers. So both SPF and DKIM >>passed on Franck's messages. > > That's not unusual at all. I would be surprised if there were any > mailing lists whose mail didn't pass SPF, and an increasing number > apply DKIM on the way out. Those both make it easier to identify > mail from lists so you can whitelist it reliably.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was calling this list out as behaving very well, compared to most. If I were trying to build a system that recognized mailing lists and applied trust metrics, having the DKIM signature pass and include the list-id header would be probably increase my confidence that it was real list mail. Keep a list of the public suffix of the list-id + the DKIM d=, and you have a pretty reliable way to validate list mails. However, this is list also seems to be setup slightly incorrectly. It is adding its own DKIM signature, but also leaving the any existing one in place. So there are two DKIM-Signature headers on most mails; one which passes and one which does not. Thanks, Peter _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
