Mark Delany wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:18:59PM -0500, Hector Santos allegedly wrote: > >> From: "Tony Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >> >>> I'm tempted to say: if the mailing list is going to do >>> *anything* to the message other than act as a simple >>> reflector, it *must* strip out any existing dkim signature. >>> What it does after that is up to the mailing list. >>> >> This would make sense for certain policies. If the processor is going to >> > > Actually I'm not sure why a list has to do anything in this case. If a > failed signature is the same as no signature, then the very action of > a mutating list has the effect of "stripping out" any existing sig. So > why impose extra work on a list? And why not let the natural course of > existing lists serendipitously "do the right thing"? > This makes sense to me. The main reason I can think of for removing a previous signature is the effort involved in trying to verify it. But that's just an optimization.
-Jim _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
