On Jun 5, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
MS Exchange, Lotus Notes, NNTP, etc.
Whatever MS Exchange and Fidonet might do, the From: addresses in
RFC.ietf-usefor-usefor are precisely what RFC 2822 says. It's not
the job of ADSP to solve MS Exchange or Fidonet issues, these nets
have their own standards, and gateways are always a tricky issue.
Agreed. However, ADSP must limit the scope of the practice. DKIM is
unlikely adopted by all transports whenever ADSP indicates adoption by
SMTP. ADSP must clearly state the transport. ADSP can not ignore the
transport in the same manner as RFC2822 and RFC4871 have. Unlike a
syntax specification, a practice must be specific about the transport
used.
RFC2822 Scope statement:
,---
|... This standard applies only to the format and some of the semantics
|of message contents. It contains no specification of the information
|in the envelope.
|
|However, some message systems may use information from the contents
|to create the envelope. It is intended that this standard facilitate
|the acquisition of such information by programs. ...
'___
While RFC2822 does not define the transport protocol and related name
space applied to the From: header, the reference to the envelope is
specified by RFC2821 which indicates a basic desire to facilitate
SMTP. Is it beyond SMTP receivers' prerogative to impose an
additional requirement that creation of envelopes based upon From:
headers be assured by the presence of resource records specified by
RFC2821? It should be possible to specify an RFC2821 support
requirement, provided SMTP receivers are adequately made aware of
potential conflicts with other transport protocol gateways, while also
offering possible mitigation strategies. Clearly, such requirements
can never be a MUST, although when validating the absence of an ADSP
assertion, verifying SMTP support should be a SHOULD.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html