| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | José Luis Tallón <jltallon(at)adv-solutions(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: New email address |
| Date: | 2015-11-26 20:10:38 |
| Message-ID: | 10396.1448568638@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
> that seems entirely doable with our current infrastructure (and even
> with minimal-to-no hackery on mj2) - but it still carries the "changes
> From:" issue :/
Yeah. What do you think of the other approach of trying to preserve
validity of the incoming DKIM-Signature (in particular, by not changing
the Subject or message body)?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2015-11-26 20:12:27 | Re: New email address |
| Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2015-11-26 19:42:37 | Re: New email address |