[Mailman-Developers] dkim-signature headers

Michael Thomas mat at cisco.com
Tue Feb 6 22:40:24 CET 2007

Barry Warsaw wrote:
> ISTM that the DKIM spec is in agreement with you Stephen:
> http://www.dkim.org/specs/draft-ietf-dkim-overview-02.html#anchor61

This is not the spec -- and it's not been widely vetted.
> I think we can say Mailman is in compliance with choice #3 in this 
> list.  I will also agree with the Note at the beginning of this 
> section that this "may be controversial".  Indeed.

The bottom line here is that you are removing signatures that are not
broken. In fact, you don't even check to see if they're broken at all.
That's bad all around.


More information about the Mailman-Developers mailing list