[ih] ih ML-manager configuration strips signatures(++)
dhc at dcrocker.net
Fri Jul 10 20:10:16 PDT 2020
On 7/10/2020 7:29 AM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote in
> <c4f8c29f-5414-00aa-cf3f-f0441f6fa64e at dcrocker.net>:
> |On 7/9/2020 6:41 AM, Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history wrote:
> |> (A little bit
> |> funny that now that everybody goes for DKIM and we see this
> |> terrible "Name via List <list>" everywhere, personal and conscious
> |> signatures end up mutilated.)
> |fwiw, that's an artifact of DMARC, not DKIM.
> Oh yes, sorry, not meant to offend you.
No need to apologize. People mix the references all the time. I am
picky about it in technical venues, to make sure people can focus on
considering the precise technology at issue.
> But still, whereas
> i really see DKIM, i do not like the way it is used. I have seen
> messages where several intermediate receivers each performed DKIM
> verification, which i could possibly understand / deem ok, but
> also generating DKIM anew. Isn't that a tremendous waste of
> resources of all kind, need- and useless, and how it increases
> header size. Just imagine every party along a traceroute chain
> would reensure the origin (if it could). No no, original sender
> (create), a possible mailing-list manager on top (verify
> + create), and final receiver (verify), that would make sense to
> me. (The problem with the OpenPGP but especially S/MIME i like
> more is that delayed authentication may no longer be possible.
> And that it needs MIME. And that the huge graphical / web mail
> applications may not handle it nicely.)
Yes, it is inefficient. No, it's not a problem.
(If we wanted to make email or the web highly optimized, there are many
things that would need to be done differently.
More information about the Internet-history