Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mailing lists

[John R Levine <[e-mail]>]

> On Mon 29/Nov/2021 04:03:57 +0100 John Levine wrote:
>> This was part of the discussion about what sort of body modifications to
>> allow. We ended up with optionally ignoring white space changes, and l= to
>> ignore added text. My impression is that neither is useful. Very few
>> messages pass with relaxed canonicalization that don't also pass strict.
>
> Using relaxed rather than strict is quite different between header and body. 
> It is fairly frequent to find reflowed headers, especially with MLM handling, 
> while bodies remain mostly untouched, except for CR additions and removals.
>
> Of course, X-MIME-Autoconverted rewrite bodies beyond strict/ relaxed range. 
> (That's the original mistake.)

Well yeah, welcome to mail UNCOL land.

> It'd be enough to add the subject tag on new messages to address the other 
> changes.  Using l= works well with a wide range of mailing lists.  However, 
> it only works with plain text.

I suppose if by wide range you mean lists that do not add subject tags and 
do not handle html or multipart bodies.  That may be common among nerd 
lists but take a look beyond mailman and I don't think it is.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly