Thanks for the summary, Stephen. Stephen Farrell wrote: > > - There are arguments that supporting both original and > mail-list signatures would be useful, but there are > also difficulties with this in particular adding the > mail-list signature will often break the original > signature. (If the mail-list signature only covers > the content and certain headers like List-Id then > this might work better). I didn't find the original mention of this, but I'm not clear on why adding a mail-list signature would break the original. It's just an additional header field, and unless the original signature was constructed to prevent that (by including DKIM-Signature in the h= headers) there shouldn't be a problem. What might break the original signatures is the modifications to the message that necessitated the mail-list signature. > > - Some particular headers may cause difficulty when a > mailing list is re-signing an originally signed message (e.g. > "Reply-To", "Subject"). > > [http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/001821.html] I didn't get quite this meaning from Frank's message. I don't know what the difficulty is; the list just has to make any modifications it's going to make before it re-signs. Like Frank, I would prefer if lists didn't do a lot of things they currently do to messages. Nevertheless, I realize that some lists are advertising-supported, so it's a behavior we're going to have to deal with.
-Jim _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
