Comment 6 for bug 1845751

Mark Sapiro (msapiro) wrote :

I've been trying to decide what to do about this, and I've come up with a plan. My issue with the @iank approach is it focuses solely on DMARC and I think there could be other valid reasons for not wanting to break DKIM in general regardless of DMARC. I considered a 'dont_break_dkim' switch that would trump any message modifications, possibly based on there being a DKIM sig in the message and what was signed, but even without those conditions this is too big a change this late in the MM 2.1 lifecycle.

So I've decided a 'drop_cc' switch with Yes the default and meaning current behavior, but No meaning don't modify the Cc: in is just what @eblake is looking for and should also satisfy @iank as far as not breaking DKIM for DMARC is concerned even though it would apply to all messages and not just those where DMARC might be an issue.