John Levine wrote: >> A more interesting case to consider is acm.org style forwarders, >> where the forwarder is, in many ways, the final destination, and where >> the address at the forwarder is "owned" by the final recipient, and >> where they will likely ask for transactional mail of the sort that >> senders might consider discardable be sent. > > Our working hypothesis has been that most forwarders of that sort won't > break the signature, so it's not a problem.
FWIW, this highlights the difference between an "Alias" and most other Mediators, a la RFC 5598. An Alias modifies a portion of the message -- SMTP RCPT-TO -- that is not covered by a DKIM signature. Hence it does not break it. This of course does not mean that an Alias Mediator should not (also) add a DKIM signature. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
