On 26 Dec 2016, at 11:31, tom p. wrote: > I believe that this does not invalid the origin DKIM signature, so I see > the criterion as always modifying messages but not in a way that > invalids DKIM signatures. Bingo! What should have been some kind of requirement is to define the method of signing the content of portions of a message with some BCP for mailing lists. The stress, if I may call it that, today for DKIM is that the signing is not in sync with how mailing lists are run. paf
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature