----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie>
To: "Hector Santos" <hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com>
I'd have to agree with Wietse's interpretation here. Anything you
infer about the rfc2822.from is something you're doing after (or
in parallel with, whatever) DKIM-base processing.
And I don't accept that this means there are batteries missing
or any other negative analogy.
And I further believe that the position as stated by Wietse
does represent the consensus of the WG, so I don't think we
should continue to argue the merits or otherwise of various
possibilities for DKIM-base signature semantics.
Excuse me?
Then are we going to change the DKIM-BASE document?
It is not a mistake to suggest there is no statement or implication of the
MUST has 2822.From mandate. Section 5.4 clearly goes into what headers
should be considered for specific reasons. There is a strong reason for
that.
Nevertheless, I don't dispute the common sense, already known, semantics as
Wietse puts it. He said nothing new. For that I could easily say +1 too.
But it doesn't solve the problem that is being addressed.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html