Dave Crocker wrote:
On 4/12/2014 8:04 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sat, 2014-04-12 at 07:47 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 4/12/2014 3:49 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sat, 2014-04-12 at 12:30 +0200, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
Also, I can see good reasoning in the simple concept: when I received
an e-mail from a private person and simply hit reply, I reply to the
person. When I received an e-mail from a discussion-list and simply
hit reply, I expect the reply to go to the discussion-list.
The message came *via* the list. Not *from* it.
Therein likes the problem. The list took delivery of a message from
the
author and then re-posted. A mailing list is not a mail relay. It
legally can make any change it wants to the message, because
formally it
is posting a new message.
So it SHOULD have a new Message-ID: header, right?
That's one of the points of debate. Again, there are reasonable
arguments for an against.
RFC 5598 extensively considers the question of changing the Message-ID:
<snip>
For that
reason, the Message-ID: is not intended to be used for any function
that has security implications.
Hmmm... of course Message-ID: is one of the fields Yahoo is including in
its DKIM signature.
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
_______________________________________________
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)
