ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no

2006-11-27 06:11:07


Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 06:25:27 -0000, Jim Fenton <fenton(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

It's not entirely forgotten; section 2.3 of draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02 discusses multiple From addresses. We thought about resolving the ambiguity by (1) arbitrarily picking the first address in the From header field, (2) picking the address in the Sender header field, or (3) querying SSP for all addresses in the From header field, and combining them somehow. We picked (1), because we don't know whether the MUA is going to display the Sender address or not, and we felt that it is likely that it will display the first From address regardless.

And there I think you picked the wrong one.

Fair enough that you disagree, but the main point though is that
the WG reached rough consensus.

I have seen sufficient comments from others to the effect that the Sender needs to be looked at in many situations that this matter probably ought to be reviewed (does that mean raising an Issue?).

No. For base, Barry and I are using a scheme where re-opening a
decided issue (which is what you'd presumably like in this case)
requires N people supporting, for some informally defined, but
increasing, value of N (the value increases as we get closer to an
RFC). Absent an absolute storm of support, we're done on this
(and by a storm I mean >>1 voices).

So sorry but its just too late,
Stephen.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>