Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM-Signature: r=y and MLM

[Dilyan Palauzov <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

let's first agree on how to technically approach this and only  
afterwards concentrate on the target specification that needs  
adjustments.

What to do?

Two out of two responders were against removing r=y from the DKIM-Signature.

I am fine with removing the invalidated DKIM-Signatures, but mailman  
developers are not (https://gitlab.com/mailman/mailman/issues/500) as  
this were incompable with ARC.

What about writing in ARC, which I have not read, to remove r=y,  
before handling DKIM-Signature:s?

Regards
   Дилян

----- Message from "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]> ---------
    Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 15:02:35 -0700
    From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM-Signature: r=y and MLM
      To: Dilyan Palauzov <[e-mail]>
      Cc: [e-mail]


> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 8:38 PM, Dilyan Palauzov <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> I suggest here in to suggest in a more formal manner, that MLMs modifying
>> a message are supposed to remove the r=y part of just invalidated
>> DKIM-Signature and this logic is also applied for ARC, if relevant (I don't
>> know ARC).  Fixing only ARC will not help, as there is software that
>> follows DKIM, but has no idea about ARC.
>>
>> Is such a recommendation a good idea?
>>
>> How to make the recomentation?  Amendment to RFC6377, amendment to RFC
>> 6651, something else, that is very short to compose?
>>
>
> I think advising anyone to alter a signature on a message irrespective of
> the signature's validity will be hard to sell.  It would be simpler to just
> remove the signature entirely if there's a good reason not to want it there
> anymore.
>
> This unfortunately seems a rather small thing for which to spin up an
> update to either RFC6377 or RFC6651.  Are there any other things that have
> evolved since those documents were published that might make revisions
> worth doing?
>
> -MSK


----- End message from "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]> -----