Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious

Hector Santos <> Tue, 21 July 2020 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41513A0A68 for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=Qt0x7f54; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=NE3HiRrw
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0MAuLkN6nBom for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9C1A3A0A66 for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=1099; t=1595364321;; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=sxOBIFtJvBzAs5gHWn0ITgk0Gdg=; b=Qt0x7f54gR9nIQ4okJV1s63eJuO2i2hDv1MjMmA6hsVOOK0xHWaAZ7BD42SCT5 Hy4/Nw0bXAPUr3WnuioUrORCW2IoT9Kcq4TOPOkooKsK6NdwwSh0bCSUbMNk4sIi 92dsRPZOcBMtiEk2zWckQqZt3MwlDu9eVFN8HEWk3D+V0=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.10) for; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:45:21 -0400
Authentication-Results:; dkim=pass header.s=tms1; dmarc=pass policy=reject (atps signer);
Received: from ([]) by (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.10) with ESMTP id 1796620348.1.7900; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:45:20 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=1099; t=1595364220; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=xOw8igb xdOaS6k3+ZL0CizL26VKjViJB8+OYthf77RU=; b=NE3HiRrwIVQhE/yNvyrSmTX vYz+mRoLK/p06ej5IwwK6RUCZBqh6mbfwlVG0NdaP/uifq42S2v6YMJS7y86pkQ4 QZQ2wSLLNFaW/RFgfLrf4BJuXKdMM5NKwukFrZJm9RSZYyMvxdd2UlXuCBjPRAJ9 5AMkpfTM99pyoQp0TKTU=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.10) for; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:43:40 -0400
Received: from [] ([]) by (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.10) with ESMTP id 1507395406.1.29276; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:43:39 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:45:19 -0400
From: Hector Santos <>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200721201938.D4F7D1D5CAD3@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20200721201938.D4F7D1D5CAD3@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:45:34 -0000

On 7/21/2020 4:19 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <> you write:
>> As useless mail headers do make emails heavier, I am in favour of
>> removing DKIM-Signature headers, that are known to be broken, e.g.
>> because the current host has modified (and resubmitted) the message.
> Look at the headers of the mail in your inbox, particularly mail from
> large providers, and you'll find megabytes of headers that nobody is
> ever likely to look at or use.  This battle was over decades ago.

I heard this stated by you a few times. I never brought into it.  It 
wasn't a problem to be concern about a few decades ago.  Now it is. 
It's junk and its growing.  The more it grows the more overhead we 
have. It makes systems who are suppose to be ignorant about the junk, 
work harder.  It makes your "View Source" more cryptic.

Simply put, for the MDA/MUA it is overhead not required. It can be 
pruned by the MDA passing it on to a MUA.

Hector Santos,