-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:41 PM
To: Jeff Macdonald
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to
posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics
Jeff Macdonald wrote:
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?
Seems so:
<http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0169.html>
"Seems so" is exactly the correct phrase..... because we don't really
know - and currently can't generally know - whether the claim of agency
by the identity in the sender field is an authorized, and thus valid
claim.....
Signed on behalf of Dave Crocker by Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html