ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Practices protocol naming poll (Closing issue 1550)

2008-03-20 20:24:40
Dave Crocker wrote:

Exactly which value of exactly which field or command are you referring to?

And how does your desire related to the current *SP specification, which 
explicitly calls for using the value(s) in the rfc2822.From field?

I don't see how we can get a useful check from this header line:

From: Me(_at_)AOL(_dot_)com, You(_at_)Hotmail(_dot_)com, 
Him(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com, Her(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com

   There's been a lot of bandwidth invested in discussion of which 
address is "right".  First?  Last?  There's no clear best answer, which 
means there's no _right_ answer that can be put in a spec and used.  Any 
decision made by us will be capricious and without basis, and will be 
screwed up by the first email user to forget to put his boss's name first.

But we may get something useful from:

Sender: Me(_at_)AOL(_dot_)com

which is required if From: has more than one item.

   An implementation of SSP can start with a check for Sender: simply 
because if it exists, that's the sender.  One test and it's done.  Only 
if that check fails would it look at From: and use the 
by-definition-only-one sender found there.  In the worst case, it makes 
two tests and it's done.
   Looking at From: first seems to be slightly more complicated, to me. 
  Look for a From: address, good, look for another.  If none, that's it. 
  If another found, then throw that away and look for a Sender: address. 
  Always at least two looks, and sometimes three.

   I'd also like to see the words "Domain", "Message" and "Policy" but 
I'll settle for "Sender Signing Practices" if that makes everyone else 
happy.

Since the word "sender" is demonstrably ambiguous, why do you prefer it?

I see no ambiguity in rfc2822 section 3.6.2. Originator fields, which I 
paraphrase here:

    If there is only one "From" address, that's the sender.  If there is 
more than one address in the "From" field, creating ambiguity on who 
it's from, then there will be a separate field "Sender" who is the sender.

   No room for confusion here.  I know that you know 2822 better than I 
do, so I'm not sure I understand your question.
   Can you explain to me where you find the term "Sender" ambiguous? 
Would you prefer the term "Originator", which means the same thing but 
takes longer to say and type?  When two ways of saying something appear 
equivalent, I prefer the more common/simpler/shorter way.

-- 
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

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