ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing domain

2006-11-28 07:21:07
Charles Lindsey wrote:

That is fair comment, but there seem to be an awful lot of people still discussing the Role of Sender (and even List-ID and Return-Path) as possible signing domains.

Why are you stuck on Sender?  It is not the author or owner of the
message and that is whats important in DKIM.

OK, this is a petition for reopening this Issue. That gives 1 vote, but you will need lots more to take action. So I invite anyone else who supports this view to reply with a +1. If there is insufficient support, then I will shut up.

Here are a few examples of recent posts which seem to want to explore these alternatives:

John Glube        15 Nov 2006 14:33:54 -0500
Frank Ellerman    22 Nov 2006 21:24:52 +0100
Hector Santos    24 Nov 2006 09:17:46 -0500
Michael Thomas    24 Nov 2006 08:47:13 -0800
Douglas Otis    27 Nov 2006 14:20:53 -0800
Charles Lindsey    27 Nov 2006 12:53:47 -0000


Charles,  my apology if I gave the wrong impression, but the only
connection to Sender: is whats already defined over the last few years in the DKIM-BASE and SSP specification - the binding that helps define the 3rd party.

I an convinced SSP must be anchored off the 2822.FROM domain.

I thought this thread was merely a postmortem Coffee or Bar chat, which
I need to stay away from and attend a few meetings instead. :-)

I'm not interested in exploring "Sender Header as the Signing Domain."

---
HLS



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

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