On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:18:08AM -0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:52:57 -0000, Jeff Macdonald
<jmacdonald(_at_)e-dialog(_dot_)com> wrote:
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?
That is what the person who actually sent it is claiming.
A well-organized 1st party signer will not sign anything that did not
originate within is domain, and containing a From/Sender within bis domain.
Ah, I thought were were talking about the case where there isn't a
signature for the domain that is present in the From: header, but just
the Sender: header. Additionally the domains for those two headers
would be different.
--
:: 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