This surprises me: This proposal makes lists sort through all of the changes they make and try to figure out which ones match a tag and which ones don't. That is surprisingly hard, e.g., I found that when you have multipart/alternative and add a message header, it edits the header text into both of the alternative versions. Good luck unscrambling that.
I expected that the tag would be a function of the algorithm used by the MLM or forwarder, rather than the particulars of each message. In a face-to-face conversation between MLM and recipient email administrator, the algorithm would be the topic of conversation, and would be the determinant of whether trust was established or not. At the same time, you raise an important point: The tag will be most useful if it will be reliably correct, but less useful if it is prone to errors.. In practice, the tag is likely to be fraught with human errors which introduce another layer of trust confusion: What do I do when the tag and the reversable content of the document are inconsistent with each other? We have a lot of those problems already. DF
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
