> In part, the issue is being addressed in draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists > already. I'm questioning whether we can get away with saying that a > MLM "is /likely/ to invalidate any or all of" a message's signatures. > Reputation considerations suggest that author domains may want MLMs > to behave consistently in this respect.
They may want that, but if we're documenting what MLMs do, I don't think they can have what they want. The conditions under which an MLM will break a signature are very hard to describe. As a typical example, many MLMs add a subject line tag, but if the tag is already present it leaves the line alone. So one message might arrive with a broken signature, and the next, a response to the first message which already has the tag in its subject line, might arrive with a valid signature. So "is likely to invalidate" is as specific as we can reasonably be. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
