"Harry Katz" <hkatz(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com> writes:
There seems to be a fair amount of discussion on this list about the
objectives and approach of the working group. I'd like to add some
thoughts to that discussion.
There was, in my opinion, a very producive discussion about which
identities to deal with yesterday on the marid jabbers session. I
found it somewhat ironic that MicroSoft's position had to be presented
by Meng Weng Wong.
If you have not had a chance to review it, please take a look at:
With respect to the charter of this working group, in my opinion this
means we must focus our efforts at the From line of the message.
I strongly disagree. The charter is open as to what parts of the
message to focus on and how to do it. That is what we have been
discussing for the last month or so.
Let me repeat: the user is entitled to believe the name on the From line
is the person who sent the message.
I think few will dispute this, nor do I think that many will dispute
that the RFC2822 From:/Sender: headers are very important.
That's the base case, and our work should therefore focus on providing
the greatest possible assurance to the user that the name they see on
the From line is in fact sender of the message. This doesn't preclude us
looking at other things. To be sure, there are times when the address on
the From line isn't the *real* sender. Yes, there are many special
cases. But let's start with the base case - one address on the From line
- and work our way from there.
I am very concerned with, as you say, the many special cases of
dealing with the RFC2822 data. While working code is not required at
this stage of RFC development, it is certainly very helpful in trying
to get a grasp on the whole problem and learning about subtle, but
Do you have any working code that validates the RFC2822 that we can
look at, test, analyze and collect data with? I realize that the C-ID
doc on the microsoft website has an algorithm outline, but that would
require a lot of work to turn into working code.
If you can't provide working code, can you provide data and your own
analysis of the situation?