Charles Lindsey wrote: > No, it appears that the MLM has two choices in this situation: > > 1. Reject of bounce it, with a message of the form "Sorry! We were unable > to forward this message to our list for reason XXXX". > > 2. Use his best endeavours to ensure that it gets delivered. > > And one of the tools in his "best endeavours" armoury is to change the > From: line.
But for what purpose? To fix the ADSP problem? Wouldn't it be better to fix the ADSP problem? One problem I see with your proposal is the reply process may have a bad email address for 3rd party signers who are not using an email domain for DKIM.d. For example: From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email protected]> DKIM-Signature: d=mach1.signer.com What you are proposing is that the distribution will be something like this: From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email protected]> DKIM-Signature: d=mach1.signer.com Is there a requirement the dkim.d domain must be a valid email address domain? Yes for 1st party, but what about the third party? If this is for the purpose of hiding original ADSP restrictions to help push mail to list members, wouldn't this be creating a security loophole? -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
