Douglas Otis said
DKIM is not about defining the author of the message and would conflict
with the charter.
Regardless of what DKIM does or doesn't have to say about the author of
a message, it's useful to have consistent and well defined terminology.
It might be a good idea to have an informational RFC that defines all
these terms (and I think Keith Moore's tried to do something like that).
I like this, for the purpose of DKIM:
"author" -- the entity who wrote the text
"originator" -- the entity who sent the message
"originating domain" -- the domain of the originator
"signing domain" -- a domain that has signed the message
"MTA" -- widely used term; does "operator" really say something else?
"verifying domain" -- a somain that verifies the message
"signer" -- an MTA/operator that has signed the message
"verifier" -- an MTA/operator that verifies the message
"recipient" -- a final recipient of the message
"recipient's domain" -- a recipient's domain
Barry
--
Barry Leiba, Pervasive Computing Technology
(leiba(_at_)watson(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com)
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba
http://www.research.ibm.com/spam
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html