On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:25 AM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.) What we're claiming is slightly different. Your approach is to trust that the "fs" domain isn't malicious; mine is to claim responsibility for only the original content and allow the second domain to claim its modifications. I guess it depends on which side we want to mess with more. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
