On 06/01/2010 11:43 AM, John Levine wrote: > I have to say that I share much of Dave's bafflement. And as a minor > list developer, I don't recognize any MLM I know in many of the > assertions below. > >> I was more highlighting there was an active choice in a MLM development to >> remove DKIM headers (as a default enabled option I think) and without a >> guidance such as what the draft is trying to achieve there could be more. > > It's challenging to parse that sentence, but if you're saying that > MLMs currently strip DKIM headers, they don't other than perhaps by > turning on a general header-stripping feature. We're still arguing > about whether it's a good idea to do so.
Mailman in particular was at one point stripping DKIM headers specifically in at least one version until I convinced them that was the wrong thing to do. Whether they actually incorporated the change back to leaving them alone, I don't know. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
