On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 06:32:25 -0400 "Hector Santos"
<hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com>
wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net>
To: "Scott Kitterman" <ietf-dkim(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com>
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 21:29, Hector Santos wrote:
It was my contention that the SSP should ALWAYS be done against the
2822.From regardless of how DKIM-Signature domain was bounded.
+1
Would you remind me how this would work with multiple address in
the From field? [*]
What's wrong with checking each one? I mean, why allow for a loophole?
First, I see this largely as a design issue, not a requirements issue, if
it's not just a receiver policy issue.
I would check each one. I would apply the most result I got. I.e. if a
2822.From address had a First Party Expected practice associated with it
and that signature was missing, I would apply the appropriate receiver
policy (I'd probably reject it, YMMV).
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html