Dňa 10. 3. o 14:31 Jeremy Harris via Exim-users napísal(a):
> That matches my code-diving. You can't use (transport) header manipulation
> results in the transport's dkim-control options (but the changed values
> are what gets signed, if any such headers are included in the definition
> for the signature).
Finally i found time to do full tests and yes, the dkim_domain uses
original header values (in regard of transport headers modifications),
but message is signed with new header values.
In other words, when i do headers_rewrite (frs) in transport, i have to
setup the same "rewrite" for return_path and dkim_domain (if rewrote
headers are in play), after that all works as expected. It is little
more complicated than i expected, but it is possible to get it works.
But IMO, it is too complicated in DMARC world, where the best is to
match all, the return-path, h_from and dkim_domain (if appropriate).
> I'll add this to the docs for now.
Thanks, i noticed the related commit.
regards
--
Slavko
https://www.slavino.sk/
--
## subscription configuration (requires account):
##
https://lists.exim.org/mailman3/postorius/lists/exim-users.lists.exim.org/
## unsubscribe (doesn't require an account):
## exim-users-unsubscribe@???
## Exim details at
http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list -
http://wiki.exim.org/
