-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 12:15 PM
To: Jeff Macdonald
Cc: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net; ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Wrong Discussion - was Why mailing lists
should
strip DKIM signatures
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.
I seem to remember this discussion in the distant past and there overall
people seemed to have less difficulty with the use of the term "spoof"
or "spoofing" instead of "forge" or forging". If not this term then it
would be appropriate to come to a consensus on a term that represents
this practice.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html