I think I am missing something
DKIM base crypto claiming responsibility of the singing domain
SSP Senders signing policy, usage statement of DKIM by sender
ASP Authors signing policy who is not clearly a sender or a member of the
signing domain but wants to assert a policy anyway
MUA how to reliably display something useful about the above information
Am I correctly framing the thread?
thanks,
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org on behalf of Scott Kitterman
Sent: Wed 1/16/2008 5:17 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by
firstAuthor breaks email semantics
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 16:49, Arvel Hathcock wrote:
Given that it would solve the problem described in 1525 and also bring
us closer to a consensus position perhaps this thread should discuss
what is lost through utilization of the Sender header in at least some
cases.
If it's allowed, then it's trivial to construct messages for which the
identity used in SSP is likely not the one displayed to the end user. Then
I'd really have to ask myself what we are trying to accomplish.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html