Re: New "Old-" headers emerging from the horizon
Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.imap.courier.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sun 28/Jan/2024 00:53:01 +0100 Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Bernd Wurst writes: >> Am 27.01.24 um 15:00 schrieb Sam Varshavchik: >>> [...] > >> As long as a server does not have BIMI validation functionality or has no MUA >> that trusts it, it seems to be completely irrelevant if those headers are >> removed or not. > > Well, I'm not well versed in the intricacies of DKIM but the spec explicitly > states that any existing headers need to be renamed but only after validating > the DKIM signature. > > I guess what that means is that Courier will leave this alone and leave it up > to the DKIM filter to munge the headers. One can never tell what MUAs users are running, let alone whether their next version is going to support BIMI. The best approach would be for Courier to Old- them, like A-R:s. None of them should be DKIM signed. At any rate, filters know that "Old-" is added by Courier, and in theory can remove it from the hash computation used to verify the signature. Best Ale -- _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users