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

[Wei Chuang <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:40 AM Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
What about adding a footer to some html mime part is poorly handled when
using "l="?  Multipart bodies could be handled by other techniques.
-Wei