On 31.08.2017 19:15, @lbutlr wrote: > > Meta information belongs into the message headers, not the body. > > Not on a general list that is not used by computer nerds it does not.
I still firmly believe it does, because the body (content) is written by list members while the header (meta) is designed to contain information that will get messages from A to B, tracking the route, ID references, etc. It does not matter if the list is aimed at "nerds" or not. > And on MANY mail clients it is either difficult or impossible to see > the headers. Yeah, as I mentioned before, not all mail clients are useful/suitable for mailing lists. That does not mean we have to dumb things down to, say, Outlook levels. > List footers existed long before DKIM came along, and the design of > DKIM intentionally did not take them into account. Intentionally? Where's your proof? > And the fact is, the only reason for it was to be jerks and try to > force mailing lists to change for "reasons" [...] Again, where's your proof? You stating "X is fact" does not make it so. > [...] since it would certainly be possible to check the original body > of the message with DKIM and ignore the list footers. How would Bob be able to figure out that parts of the body are "footer" when Alice has signed the body as a whole, including her own signature, or signatures she quoted, if she so desires? That would be applying arbitrary semantics, or guesswork. > Even something as simple as "DKIM will not check anything past the > first signature delimiter" would have solved all the problems, except > that the "problem" was a religious one, not a technical one. Religious. Oh my. Another statement without proof. That's not how I remember discussions work. ;-) -Ralph
