ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Next steps for draft-ietf-dkim-ssp

2009-01-02 11:34:53

On Dec 31, 2008, at 4:34 PM, J D Falk wrote:

On 30/12/2008 11:15, "Dave CROCKER" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:

> The fact that i= is defined to identify a user, rather than a mailbox, and

A user, or a use!  But I doubt that makes things any clearer.

Matching against just the domain to confirm compliance with ADSP does not change that i= represents the "on-behalf-of" entity. The MUA or the agent annotating the messages can confirm the "on-behalf-of" matches against the From header before adding annotation, such as making folder placements. This would represent a very similar process needed for Sender-ID when the PRA does not match against the From. To allow "all" messages, ADSP should be able to accommodate a normal range of valid messages. Otherwise, an imposed ADSP "on-behalf-of" limitation will impose a requirement to _violate_ the meaning of the i= parameter.

-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html