On 30/01/2025 21:19, Michael Thomas wrote:
I’m a little unclear on the need to fully describe the “mutation” that might be
applied by an intermediary. Even if fully described, you need to have some
trust of the intermediary to accept the mutation, because otherwise you don’t
know that the mutation doesn’t contain harmful/unwanted content (barring some
magic AI thing perhaps).
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to understand. If you can recover the original
signature, you could conceivably run spam filters separately on the different
parts using the reputation (if any) of the different parts, I suppose. But how
big of a deal is that in the real world?
One useful thing from being able to recover the message as it arrived
at a mailing-list manager: An MUA displaying the message could
display the original From: header - undoing some of the damage that
(IMHO) dkim/dmarc has perpetrated in forcing MLMs to rewrite From:
I want this because, as a reader of MLs - I want to know who wrote
the message, and to not have to waste brain cycles on guessing an
un-munge.
So the charter should permit the WG to work on the "mutations" thing.
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
