John Levine wrote:
But whatever, we may need a straw poll followed by a clarification RFC,
to settle once and for all whether Levine or Thomas is canon.
Mike's version is what the RFC says. My version is the way that way
too many people will misunderstand it, no matter what it actually
says.
You've illustrated my point very well. Thanks!
So can you help clarify your RFC 5617 work?
I honestly feel most people who decide to support it are going to
follow what its says, just like David MacQuigg posted here today:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/msg05781.html
So they will follow it verbatim.
RFC 5617 section 4.2.1. Record Syntax writes:
all All mail from the domain is signed with an Author
Domain Signature.
discardable All mail from the domain is signed with an
Author Domain Signature. Furthermore, if a
message arrives without a valid Author Domain
Signature due to modification in transit,
submission via a path without access to a
signing key, or any other reason, the domain
encourages the recipient(s) to discard it.
However, once implementators do follow the above, I think you are
saying, it will be problem for 3rd party signers?
B.4. Third-Party Senders
Another common use case is for a third party to enter into an
agreement whereby that third party will send bulk or other mail on
behalf of a designated Author or Author Domain, using that domain
in the [RFC5322] From: or other headers. Due to the many and
varied complexities of such agreements, third-party signing is not
addressed this specification.
This this mean, if I read you and thomas right, DKIM=ALL means 3rd
party signers are possible without valid 1st signatures?
CHAIRS: I believe this are honest WG questions.
--
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html