On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 13:44 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:29:13 +0200 > > Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> wrote:
> On 15.06.09 12:30, RW wrote: > > Would you care to elaborate? You comment makes no sense to me. > > the more people use DKIM/PGP, the less unsubscribe-signatures will be > attached to list mail. And since (I guess) we do want people use such > techniques, we shouldn't rely on the fact enough people won't use them so > the "accidental(1)" subscribers won't see them and will complain > List servers like mailman resend the message with a different envelope header. For example, the message I'm quoting was received as: Jun 16 06:45:23 sa amavis[27515]: (27515-18) Passed CLEAN, [140.211.11.3] [195.168.3.66] <users-return-79990-dan.mcdonald=austinenergy....@spamassassin.apache.org> -> <dan.mcdon...@austinenergy.com>, Message-ID: <20090616114447.ga31...@fantomas.sk>, mail_id: i+AbqzQlLrXO, Hits: -4.291, size: 4375, queued_as: AD64C187, 1077 ms The MTA receiving this message looks for policy statements about spamassassin.apache.org, not for policy statements from fantomas.sk. If spamassassin.apache.org were to alter the body and DKIM sign the message, it would be fine because it would match spamassassin.apache.org's policy. Altering message bodies might break gpg|pgp signatures, but not DKIM. -- Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281, CNX www.austinenergy.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
