On Mar 10, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 07:50:15AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
ps. To the extent that folks decide we do need a special term for
the first Operator, the word Originator will be confusing, given
a) it's history, and b) it's likely intuitive meaning to folks.
If you ask a random person who the Originator of a message is, I
suspect they will refer to the author.
That may be, but I'm with Bill on this one. As an ESP, the client
is the author, we are just the publishers. However, if we just
talking mail streams and not content, then I like your original
model of Originator and Operator.
In the draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-otis-dkim-options-00.txt
roles HELO : MSA/Mediator/MDA
This draft attempted to define roles for signatures. In the case of
the MDA signing role, this could be used instead of a results header
which is prone to simple exploits. The client IP address or a
verified HELO can be held accountable for both the message envelope
and the message. The signer can only be held accountable for the
portion of the message signed. Role assignments based upon SPF or
Sender-ID must be prohibited due to the possible inordinate
amplification (by orders of magnitude) of UDP traffic.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html