Hello,
let's first agree on how to technically approach this and only
afterwards concentrate on the target specification that needs
adjustments.
What to do?
Two out of two responders were against removing r=y from the DKIM-Signature.
I am fine with removing the invalidated DKIM-Signatures, but mailman
developers are not (https://gitlab.com/mailman/mailman/issues/500) as
this were incompable with ARC.
What about writing in ARC, which I have not read, to remove r=y,
before handling DKIM-Signature:s?
Regards
Дилян
----- Message from "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> ---------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 15:02:35 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM-Signature: r=y and MLM
To: Dilyan Palauzov <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 8:38 PM, Dilyan Palauzov <[email protected]>
wrote:
I suggest here in to suggest in a more formal manner, that MLMs modifying
a message are supposed to remove the r=y part of just invalidated
DKIM-Signature and this logic is also applied for ARC, if relevant (I don't
know ARC). Fixing only ARC will not help, as there is software that
follows DKIM, but has no idea about ARC.
Is such a recommendation a good idea?
How to make the recomentation? Amendment to RFC6377, amendment to RFC
6651, something else, that is very short to compose?
I think advising anyone to alter a signature on a message irrespective of
the signature's validity will be hard to sell. It would be simpler to just
remove the signature entirely if there's a good reason not to want it there
anymore.
This unfortunately seems a rather small thing for which to spin up an
update to either RFC6377 or RFC6651. Are there any other things that have
evolved since those documents were published that might make revisions
worth doing?
-MSK
----- End message from "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> -----
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
