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

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Mon 29/Nov/2021 15:17:45 +0100 John R Levine wrote:
>> 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.


Those conversions used to afflict direct mail flows as well.


>> 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.


OTOH, it'd feel cringing to discuss the standardization of solutions to deal 
with indirect mail flows using a mailing list where neither of those solutions 
apply.


Best
Ale
--