On Fri 26/Jun/2020 05:20:27 +0200 John Levine wrote: > In article > <caj4xoyecbh4ycofhzmv+a0336aifx55blvsdh-u21kkj+gr...@mail.gmail.com> you > write: >> B) Specifying the specific Intermediary in the Intermediary Field. This >> would indicate that the users domain recognizes that the user uses the >> intermediary and by policy exempts this use even though it breaks both DKIM >> and SPF validation. The receiving domain would need to recognize some >> potential risk of malicious modifications or additions to the message. > > Sounds like what I proposed several years ago: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levine-dkim-conditional-03
+1, proper verification requires a DKIM version bump. However, the first point in the issues is new: On Fri 26/Jun/2020 02:05:43 +0200 Dotzero wrote: >> Issues: >> >> 1) It increases administrative complexity for the originating domain >> in that it requires the domain to either track user:intermediary >> relationships or enable users to self approve such relationships ad hoc. The problem of how to build such knowledge on user:intermediary relationships at each mailbox provider might be worth being discussed. Note that the same knowledge, at the receiving stage would allow receivers to just whitelist MLMs. Even if this simpler arrangement wouldn't survive further forwarding, it is not antithetic to conditional signatures. Best Ale -- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
