On Saturday, April 12, 2014 04:59:58 John Levine wrote: > >Why is it better to add a new type of header field than to simply add a new > >DKIM signature when forwarding that also signs the A-R fields you've added. > > If a receiver trusts the sender not to lie about O-A-R fields, then I > >don't see not trusting the A-R fields they add. > > I'm still trying to imagine a plausible scenario in which a receiver > would trust the list signer enough to believe the A-R header, but not > enough to just deliver the mail. > > I cannot ever recall malfeasance by someone pretending to be a mailing > list subscriber he is not, even back when there was no control at all > over lists, other than one time on a list of grad students in about > 1978.
I agree, but if someone's going to pursue this, they ought not to invent something new when it's absolutely not needed. Scott K _______________________________________________ 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)
