Re: [dmarc-ietf] Question regarding RFC 8617

On 11/7/2019 3:16 PM, Brandon Long wrote: On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:28 AM Dave Crocker > wrote: On 11/6/2019 9:43 AM, Brandon Long wrote: > What's more, the point of including Subject and other mutable headers is > the same as it is for DKIM, those

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Question regarding RFC 8617

ermediary SMTP system receives an email on behalf of the > recipient system whereby the “subject” field is required to by changed for > the email to be categorized as desired by the recipient system. (example: > “RE: [dmarc-ietf] Question regarding RFC 8617” modified to: “RFC > Corre

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Question regarding RFC 8617

system. (example: “RE: [dmarc-ietf] Question regarding RFC 8617” modified to: “RFC Correspondence: [dmarc-ietf] Question regarding RFC 8617”) As Kurt pointed out below, the ARC signature is NOT intended to be validated by hops >1 step away. However, I did not think this was the case and that

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Question regarding RFC 8617

On 11/6/2019 9:43 AM, Brandon Long wrote: What's more, the point of including Subject and other mutable headers is the same as it is for DKIM, those are the headers which are important to the receiver, so they should be validated. This being a technical list, I'm going to get picky and note

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Question regarding RFC 8617

changed for > the email to be categorized as desired by the recipient system. (example: > “RE: [dmarc-ietf] Question regarding RFC 8617” modified to: “RFC > Correspondence: [dmarc-ietf] Question regarding RFC 8617”) > > > > As Kurt pointed out below, the ARC signature is NOT i

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Question regarding RFC 8617

The choice of which headers are included in the signed set is strictly up to the domain administrators who implement the signing practices. Also, the AMS is only relevant for the next receiver, it is not intended to be validated by hops >1 step away from the domain which adds that instance so I

[dmarc-ietf] Question regarding RFC 8617

DOI: 10.17487/RFC8617 The inclusion of the address headers in the signature, and possibly the Subject, is an issue: ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901;