Just to be clear, we all understand that these funky DKIM signatures have nothing to do with the reason that Google is rejecting mailop messages, right?
R's, John >On 4/28/19 12:38 PM, Chris Adams via mailop wrote: >> So should mailing lists reject such messages? > >No. Absolutely not. > >The DKIM specification states that a failed DKIM-Signature validation >should be treated like a lack of a DKIM-Signature. > >I think the list MTA should accept the messages with DKIM oversigned >headers, remove said DKIM-Signature headers, pass the DKIM-less message >into the mailing list for normal processing. > >Ideally, the list MTA would add new DKIM-Signature header as messages >went outbound. > >> If they're going to add headers and the signing effectively says >> "don't", why should the list accept the message? > >The signing doesn't say "don't". The signing is a way to detect if the >message has been modified in transit. IMHO DKIM is a trip wire of sorts >to detect modification, nothing more, nothing less. Was the message >modified, yes or no. _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
