Sorry for the very late posting. I realize there are lots of replies to
this, but I have trouble keeping thoughts straight after reading a long
thread, so I'll just add my 2 cents now:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 09:46:26AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
<snip>
In any event, "on behalf of" is key wording that permits more flexibility
than you seem to be acknowledging. Note, for example, that the agent
specified in the Sender field is acting "on behalf of" the author.
Is that agent authorized to work "on behalf of" the author?
Whereas SSP began as a simple idea as a means of deciding whether an
unsigned message should have been signed, it has morphed into an effort to
validate the From field. That is a very, very different goal.
While DKIM has the goal of assigning *any* identity to a message, so that
that identity can be assessed, the current work on SSP is attempting to
instead validate authorship.
DKIM needs to say what part of DKIM asserts a new identity. What is the
output of DKIM? And should that output be treated as opaque.
--
:: Jeff Macdonald | Director of Messaging Technologies
:: e-Dialog | jmacdonald(_at_)e-dialog(_dot_)com
:: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421
:: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118
:: www.e-dialog.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html