J.D. Falk:
> J.D. Falk wrote:
>
> > MailMan is covered, though
> [ . . . ]
> > (This message will be signed, too, with a different key on the same box.)
>
> Even better! The MIPAssoc server (also running MailMan) swapped my
> signature for Authentication-Results, and signed the new message.
>
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=mipassoc.org; s=k00001;
> t=1243013748; bh=KKzdl+Xw6IloZrUtOCIjcoI2bG8=; h=Message-ID:Date:
> From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id:
> List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:
> Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=If3rAwfKN03nqJhjL
> EqKR6+0izu3ujK8ak0Oa4AMAuTwZtofkhfGqH6V11/OmvVIPclZ45L0zTsbmYT8XoXN
> 5c66LqkE9t/leS246vbssPyoNF3SBhrhFmhuSWno5S5YGLFb3bYto06u8dRLhmakafg
> 1MvoT6tUnSj5aHo+uCOI=
> Received: from ocelope.disgruntled.net (ocelope.disgruntled.net
> [97.107.131.76])
> by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4MHZLXK017726
> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL)
> for <[email protected]>; Fri, 22 May 2009 10:35:27 -0700
> Authentication-Results: sbh17.songbird.com;
> dkim=pass (1024-bit key) [email protected]
>
> I love it when FUD is so easily overridden by operational reality.
+1 on the motion to kill and six-feet-under the l= option.
As for evangelizing, perhaps the DKIM website can put up (pointers
to) HOWTO guidance for stripping DKIM headers and re-signing
submissions as in the above example.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
