On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:55:40AM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy allegedly wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 11:42 AM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] marketing dkim
Dave CROCKER wrote:
No doubt some do validate the From: field. Others merely mean "the
message went through my MTA". Any assertion of From: field assessment
is therefore far outside the scope of the DKIM base specification.
This is hard to grasp and conflicts with the DKIM base specification
which makes the 5322.FROM a fundamentally required binding hashed
entity in the DKIM signature manufacturing.
I don't know what you mean by "binding". DKIM doesn't say From: has
to contain any particular value, only that it has to be one of the
signed fields.
I don't know about binding either, but my point, before this
sub-thread is completely lost, is that the suggestion that a "caring
provider" put in some user identifiable token amounts to the same thing
as asking a "caring provider" to ensure that 822.From can be used as a
user identifiable token.
In other words, there is no need to invent anything new here to
achieve the OP's result. After all, an uncaring provider means that
From is as reliable as any other user identifiable token, which is to
say, not at all.
So, assuming you can determine a caring provider, then ask them to be
careful about 822.From rather than ask them to invent and insert some
other user identifiable token.
Note: I'm not necessarily advocating the OP's suggestion, just saying
no new token needs to be invented to support it - instead, just make
the recommendation to "caring providers". Job done. Move along.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html