On 08/02/2010 12:43 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Daniel Black
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:15 AM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Alternative MAiling List Approach
On Thursday 29 July 2010 21:21:41 Charles Lindsey wrote:
I promised to do this some while back, but only just got a round
tuit.
Ah the mythical round tuit.
I put a similar idea through when once I had a round tuit. Feel free to
follow
the threads.
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/dkim-dev/2009-September/000202.html
This makes at least the third time this has been suggested by someone. I
believe (though I'm willing to be corrected) that the draft should therefore
cover this possibility and either advocate it or explain why it's a bad idea.
The latter is acceptable; the material is on-topic, and we're trying to
relay implementation advice and experience here, so it can be a cookbook of
what to do as well as what not to do.
Include the option in the document with it's pros and cons: +1. As for
the option itself (rewriting From): -1. Reasons:
- I don't think it's a good idea to overwrite any Reply already set by
the author of the message; it breaks the meaning of Reply-To as defined
in RFC5322
- As per par. 6.3.2 of RFC5322 the From: address is not the right field
to rewrite, IMO. If anything would have to be rewritten, it would be the
Sender address.
Comments? And if you agree, your rationales in either direction? (I'll take
Daniel's text at that link into account.)
/rolf
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html