william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Jim Fenton wrote:
The people we're trying to help are the ones who won't can't do that
additional setting to make Sender visible. And I'm not satisfied
with helping 50% of the clients.
Lets suppose for a moment that email client change and we have another
visible header field that close to 100% can see and that also needs to
be protected or lets say we have another header field that some,
including signer (but not all) want to be protected.
There are a lot of things that can be done if one assumes an email
client change, but we have been avoiding requiring that because it is
expected to greatly increase the time to successful deployment.
So, unless you have real big problem with being just slightly more
verbose,
please specify by additional tag that for anti-spoofing, you're
focusing on "from". If there is support to introduce anti-spoofing
protect for another field, it would then be easy and not cause any
potential conflicts with existing installed base.
A few of the DKIM authors have been discussing this, and I expect the
current dependency on Sender to change in -01. Stay tuned.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org