On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On 4/30/2010 8:32 AM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Dave CROCKER<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
I wrote:
and forging the From address
It's not forged:
...
The use of that word, for this situation, is simply incorrect.
...
Perhaps poorly chosen words. But I think most understood the intent.
Actually, most seem not to. They really believe the string is "invalid" or
at least that its presence in that form is "wrong".
If we are doing serious technical work, we need to be serious in our use of
terminology. Among the various terms that I regularly rant about, the
long-standing mischaracterization of the From: string as "forged" is
particularly egregious. And my rant is not at you. It's at the community,
for having established the practise of using the term.
don't ever stop banging that drum.
I'm willing to go from a world where any system can use my From to one
where only the systems I say can. And that means changes.
That's an example of the problem in using the term: Much discussion about
DKIM presume far more end-to-end control by authors or senders than they
will ever have.
Murray, John, Dave and Mike:
I apologize for going off on a tangent. I just keep asking myself "what if". :)
I like John's suggestion of taking Brett's ideas to ASRG.
--
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html