On 4/29/2010 2:04 PM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Dave CROCKER<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
I think you are raising the (much) larger question of constraining the
nature of
changes made by MLMs. Since they [sic] are actually posting an entirely new
message,
and forging the From address
It's not forged:
"to imitate fraudulently"
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forge>
The use of that word, for this situation, is simply incorrect.
And the retention of the original posting's From: string is quite simply valid.
The fact that it is causing a problem for some add-on technologies does not,
post hoc, render the string invalid.
they have the legitimate freedom to do what they want to it.
is it really legitimate in today's world?
Yes. Until the community develops, adopts and uses some alternative model,
retention of the original posting's From: string has specific meaning that
remains essential for mailing list semantics.
However, some can
choose to participate in that much more constrained role, looking more like a
relaying MTA than a modifying intermediary.
DKIM should be able to survive that.
And there should be world peace. Our sharing such a wish does not, post hoc,
render the string invalid.
d/
ps. DKIM /can/ survive that. Merely use l=0 and hash only the From: field or
perhaps From: and Date: or perhaps... The fact that the community considers
that alternative inadequate is understandable, but again, this add-on
technology
(DKIM) does not have the right to come in and declare well-established existing
practice invalid.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html