J. Gomez <[email protected]> writes: > a "technically appropriate" technical solution yes there is: > "Every resender[ *] who invalidates the original Author's DKIM > signature must take ownership of the Header-From and re-sign > the message". Simple. Easy. But socially unacceptable (for > now, at least) because of the expectations of several legacy > mail usages.
If by "expectations of several legacy mail usages" you mean "reasonable expectations of well-established mail usages", and not "unreasonable expectations of nearly-obsolete mail usages", then sure. :-) So having granted that the above proposed solution is unacceptable, how can we move on to find an acceptable solution? Some days ago I tentatively suggested signing only part of some message parts, in particular part of the Subject header (excluding any future additions of "[list-identification]"), assuming that such an approach had doubtless already been suggested elsewhere. I was expecting to hear either "been there, tried that, won't work", or (a polite version of) "that's a dumb idea because...", but I've heard nothing. I can't quite make myself believe that you're all rendered speechless by my sheer genius, so... why *won't* something like that work? Anne. -- Ms. Anne Bennett, Senior Sysadmin, ENCS, Concordia University, Montreal H3G 1M8 [email protected] +1 514 848-2424 x2285 _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
