Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Header munging, not ARC, can solve the mailing list problem

From: "Douglas E. Foster" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 13:20:47 -0400

Pete;you have not explained how my inbox filter recignizes a legitimate 
forward of a legitimate message instead of an illegitimate forward or a 
fraudulently manufactured Received-header sequence.

We only have this problem 
with lists that alter the original to destroy DKIM validity.   When this is 
done, the list becomes the author snd the headers should reflect as much.

The referenced spam analysis article notes that infequently seen message 
sources are high probability spam.   If the list postings are from many 
individuals instead of one IETF address, the likelihood of blocked posts is 
significant.  Thus should ne a concern whether DJIM is preserved or not.

On Jun 19, 2020 12:46 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:On 19 
Jun 2020, at 11:40, Pete Resnick wrote:

> The presumption of all Mediator-type transactions was that the 
> receiving email client was to deal with the message (the thing with 
> the identical Message-ID) with its original semantics, adding only 
> Resent-*: or List-*: fields to add the semantic of the mediation 
> event.

That sentence got munged due to cuts and pastes that didn't all add up. 
It should read:

"The presumption of all Mediator-type transactions was that the 
receiving email client was to deal with the message (the thing with the 
identical Message-ID) with its original semantics, with the sender 
adding only Resent-*: or List-*: fields to add the semantic of the 
mediation event."

-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc