On Thu 25/Nov/2021 09:07:36 +0100 Wei Chuang wrote:
Thanks for the feedback and answers.
You're welcome
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 3:01 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue 23/Nov/2021 00:28:01 +0100 Wei Chuang wrote:
[...]
6. Subject
* Agreed that some simple heuristic as proposed in the draft is a good
approach. Perhaps the original subject suffix length also might work
here too. >>
I don't get this, I'm afraid. What is the subject suffix length?
Sorry I wasn't too clear here. It's largely the same idea as the DKIM body
length "l=" field above except for reformulated for the Subject header and
its mailing list mutations. The original sender would encode a length of
the original subject say "s.l=<value>". A receiver would only hash the
right most "s.l=<value>" length string when validating a Subject hash from
the original sender. This assumes that mailing lists may prepend a string
typically for identification.
Oh, yeah. However, unless we store sl= as an additional DKIM tag, we'd need an
extra header field such as Subject-Length. In that case, Original-Subject is
much more straightforward.
Original-Subject also covers possible AW: to Re: translations.
Finally, the MLM prefix must be short. It is not acceptable to have an entire
phrase followed by hundreds of white space before the original subject.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
