>That last sentence is basically what I said about both of my drafts, and >that logic was shot down. Once you've decided you don't like the arbitrary >changes, you know who to blame, but you still have to decide what you like >and what you don't.
Yeah, now that I look at your drafts again, I see that we are both making the same assertion that this message is a mutated version of one that someone else sent. I still like mine better because trying to enumerate all of the possible kinds of changes doesn't work very well, e.g., subject tags and per-recipient S/MIME encryption. (Sympa can do the latter.) >"might be mailing lists" sounds like a place for heuristics. How would you >identify an address that might be a list, or content that's likely destined >for a list? The "-l" suffix isn't that common these days. Looking at my DMARC reports from Gmail, the tags suggest they have a pretty good idea of where the lists are. It doesn't have to be perfect, just avoid sending the weak signature to recipients who are likely to be malicious. Re other notes, there's no need to define what a "weak" signature is, since the conditional signature is an ordinary DKIM signature that is verified in the usual way, give or take the new @fs tag. It's up to the original signer how much latitude it wants to give forwarders. R's, John PS: for @ vs !, I think the bike shed would look great in a dusky rose with mocha-taupe trim. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
