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