Hi. On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 03:27:09PM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > Okay, I've changed the the DKIM_SIGN_HEADERS ... let's see if this is > good, thanks
This e-mail passed DKIM check for me, previous one failed it. > > Also, "Autocrypt: prefer-encrypt=mutual" for a list mail? > Yes, that is an Enigmail thing.... Let's hope that two users of Enigmail won't meet here, as the result would be encrypted e-mails sent to the list. > Yes, not sure yet, but I think if the email is being "sent" by any mail > server and even if it is being locally delivered, then at the "send" > point, DKIM signing should take place. Nope. I repeat, see the macros. Exim should take a decision to invoke a SMTP session for DKIM to trigger. > One of the reasons for signing is to keep the emails fully authentic and > to (perhaps) remove the possibility of anyone tampering with an email > source and saying "you sent this...." when they doctored it. This might > be very important at the /same/ mail server level, especially within a > single organization. That's true, but I see no reason why one cannot implement this useful policy on a transit MTA. > Yes, I think it might be a kludge that isn't worth doing; perhaps an > adjustment to how Exim itself handles this situation would help. All I can say that I wish you luck in implementing it. Reco
