Tony,
Then your domain (att.com) will need to declare a relaxed 3rd party
signature concept.
For example:
Using SSP-01 this is defined as default policy or o=~.
Using a DSAP framework, you would declare:
OP=OPTIONAL;
3P=OPTIONAL;
In both cases, you are using a NEUTRAL policy.
You are no longer protecting the authorization of the signature because you
essentially don't care who signs the message.
But you want to allow the 3rd party to have the message authenticity and
integrity power of DKIM.
Now, with DSAP, you can be restrictive on which 3rd party would be allowed
to sign:
OP=OPTIONAL;
3P=OPTIONAL;
3PL=*.hallmark.com;*.newyorktimes.com
which Michael's document covers with requirement #5 covers.
So in my technical view, we don't need the 2822.Sender because it is already
covered with requirement #5.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hansen" <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com>
To: "DKIM List" <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
Tony Hansen wrote:
add RFC2822.Sender
I'm not the chair, but I've seen considerably less consensus about
anything other than rfc2822.from. I'm frankly not sure I understand
it very well.
I know I don't understand it!
Maybe a more detailed use-case would help? (Tony?)
I want to make certain that what we're building with policies doesn't
prevent eCard senders or News agencies from doing what they currently
do. They should be able to 1) send a message to someone on my behalf
while 2) marking themselves as the sender and 3) being able to sign the
message. According to 2822, this minimally requires support for
RFC2822.Sender as well as RFC2822.From.
For example, consider these scenarios:
From: tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Sender: cards(_at_)hallmark(_dot_)com
DKIM-Signature: ... d=hallmark.com; ...
Subject: Happy birthday from Tony
or
From: tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Sender: news(_at_)newyorktimes(_dot_)com
DKIM-Signature: ... d=newyorktimes.com; ...
Subject: some news story
These need to be validated against the sender.
Yes, there are a variety of issues. And to properly deal with this
issue, we also need to deal with Sender/d= above being "@bigbadguy.com".
DKIM is not sufficient in and of itself, as we all know. But we need to
be able to support these scenarios somehow.
If we don't let this be done using Sender:, then we need to have some
other way of doing it. My choice is to support the 2822 way of doing it,
which says we need to support Sender:.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html