Hi Dave,
At 09:32 17-03-2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
I am not understanding your concern. I added the word "responsible"
to each of the defintions, in order to make explicit that
responsibility is what we are focused on.
I suggested removing the word "responsible" as from the point of view
of the distributor or retailer, it may not always be clear who the author is.
Are you distinguishing accountability from responsibility? If so,
why and how?
No, I am not going to such lengths.
Are you viewing the word 'responsible' as redundant, since the
entire context is about it? If so, my feeling is that we need to
repetition, since there is already some history of missing this focus.
No, I do not view the word "responsible" as redundant. The
repetition stresses who is responsible for what.
If your concern is something else, what is it?
My concern is that the determination of authorship is not clear-cut
when we talk about mail.
Publisher:
Responsible for some degree of author and/or content
"approval" and for injecting the content into the Internet Mail service.
As we move down the distribution chain, we find that the publisher
may be identified as the responsible party as he/she can, to some
degree, do content "approval" and identify the author.
Again, I am not understand your point. You seem to be agreeing with
the definition, but I suspect you are intending to suggest a change
or to raise a concern. Please clarify.
I agree with your definition from Publisher downwards. My point in
regards to the author definition is that if we cannot determine the
identity, then we cannot establish responsibility.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html