On Mon 06/Jul/2020 11:24:19 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 1:49 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
For multipart messages, transformations may need to replace boundaries.
In that case, the "restricted patch" to undo the transformation may
require more data than it is convenient to store in a DKIM tag. >>
Replace why? It might need to add its own, but it's easy to undo that.
Oops, I thought MLM generated boundaries anew. It seems that's not the case.
Still, the original Content-Type is difficult to reproduce exactly. You need
to know whether the boundary= parameter is written as a token or a
quoted-string, and, if not c=relaxed, spaces and newlines. If longer than a
few bits, the info to undo the transformation (a reverse patch?) could be
stored in its own field, or even in an attachment.
Another difficulty, IIRC, is reordering of To:. This can simply be avoided.
In order to be useful, this only needs to do what MLMs commonly do
already. We don't need to cover the universe of possible futures right
away.
Agreed. MLMs code has no lack of conditionals. Probably this technique can
address a class of mailing lists somewhat wider than the "no-changes" class,
without trying to cover even one half of /present/ MLM possibilities. Shall
say just enough to cover IETF mailing lists?
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
