[Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

Ian Eiloart iane at sussex.ac.uk
Wed Nov 23 14:16:13 CET 2011

On 16 Nov 2011, at 16:10, C Nulk wrote:

> I can't help but consider the rash of useless Mediator headers.
> Consider the following example:
> Person 1 sends a message to a list which is then sent to Person 2.
> Person 1's site has separate appliances for the MTA, Spam checking,
> Anti-Virus, and Spy-ware, likewise for the receiver's site and the site
> the MLM is for the list.  My reading of the above definitions tells me:
> 1. Person 1's MUA adds a Mediator header (creating a message is a simple
> special case of modifying/adding a message,

But, there are already headers to identify the creator. There's no need to use a mediator header to duplicate other information.

> 2. Person 1's site adds 4 additional Mediator headers (one each for the
> MTA, Spam, Anti-Virus, Spy-ware since each modify/forward/add to the
> message,

The MTA would use a "received" header, not a mediator header. If the message is routed through the other systems, then they should already add received headers. If the message isn't routed through those systems (e.g., the systems are plugged in to the MTA, then there's no need to add mediator headers).

> 3. The MLM's site adds 9 additional Mediator headers (4 inbound [item
> 2], 1 for the MLM [maybe more], and 4 outbound),
> 4. Person 2's site adds 4 additional Mediator headers (4 inbound [item 2]),
> 5. Person 2's MUA may or may not add a Mediator header depending on any
> rules/filters Person 2 has in place.

Ian Eiloart
Postmaster, University of Sussex
+44 (0) 1273 87-3148

More information about the Mailman-Developers mailing list