ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2006-11-28 12:08:31
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 12:36, Frank Ellermann wrote:

In that point I agree with Hector:  The problems of braindead
MUAs are out of scope.

Except that any solution that starts out with upgrade every MUA in the world (except I think GNUs) is probably not going to get much traction. The reality is that from an end user perspective 2822.From is the only game in town.
Scott --

This seems to assume that the only consumer of SSP information would be an MUA. That's not a very good assumption -- incoming filters could make use of the information too. From that standpoint, other inputs beside the From address might be interesting too.

That said, after thinking about this I don't find those arguments compelling enough to get wrapped around the axle. Also: given that the protocol needs to be extensible, we can be cautious and defer things that we're not very sure about their utility to some time in the future when the benefits are more clear. This seems to be one of those
things.

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

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