Most legitimate Resent cases are such where last sender (person listed
in Resent-From) would very likely be be on the personal whitelist of
the recipient because of extensive prior communication.
BTW - this means that absolute/strict policy may not be absolute in
practice where the filter manufacture may decide to use system with
whitelisting overriding any results from policy check (including
those from very strict only-me, no 3p policy).
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
must be an earlier version Mike sent me.
Okay, I started to wonder if what I have might be already old.
Maybe draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00.txt still needs your
approval for its "official" publication, because it's a "-00".
I'm quite sure that some requirement will contradict some
aspect of each of the current proposals, but we shouldn't
worry about that too much for now.
I like to have it clear in the requirements, that IFF a future
SSP won't work for such "resent" scenarios, then that has to be
explicitly stated.
It's relevant for a hypothetical 2822bis, if 2822bis tries to
decree that all forms of Resent-* are obsolete and should be
replaced by ordinary forwards as MIME message/rfc822 parts.
I vaguely recall that an MMS2SMTP gateway RFC already goes in
that direction, either get rid of or ignore any Resent-*.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html