In article <[email protected]> you write: >In article ><caj4xoyecbh4ycofhzmv+a0336aifx55blvsdh-u21kkj+gr...@mail.gmail.com> you write: >>B) Specifying the specific Intermediary in the Intermediary Field. This >>would indicate that the users domain recognizes that the user uses the >>intermediary and by policy exempts this use even though it breaks both DKIM >>and SPF validation. The receiving domain would need to recognize some >>potential risk of malicious modifications or additions to the message. > >Sounds like what I proposed several years ago: > >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levine-dkim-conditional-03
Mike clarified that his suggestion is simpler in that the recipient can recognize that intermediary however it wants, not necessarily with a DKIM signature. This makes me wonder how many mailing lists still don't add DKIM signatures. Unlike the header rewriting hacks, they don't affect the way recipients see or handle the mail in their inboxes. -- Regards, John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
