In article <cal0qlwyjz3fnlc65u1qdk5ahxpscipbywew+bmz62ptlb3e...@mail.gmail.com> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >I decided to breathe life into this idea since it's relevant and got some >discussion recently. Comments welcome. > >I'm talking to the Mailman people about the idea now; this is based on some >things they mentioned. I haven't managed to get the attention of Sympa or >L-Soft yet.
I wrote the Sympa ARC code which is entwined with the DKIM code so that would probably be me. Honestly, this looks like a lot more work than ARC to get a result likely to be worse in practice than ARC. It would not be hard for a bad guy to use the footer or add-part transformation to lay a big spammy blob on top of some innocuous original message. Rather than play cat and mouse and try to figure one when a change is too big, recipients would use this the same way they use ARC, and only check it on mail from senders who are generally well behaved. I believe that the main thing that recipients will do with either of these is to ask was the original message actually from the putative sender, and ARC is a lot easier to implement. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
