> On 30 Jan 2025, at 21:39, Jeremy Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
+1 laura -- The Delivery Expert Laura Atkins Word to the Wise [email protected] Delivery hints and commentary: http://wordtothewise.com/blog
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
