Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
My concern with this specific point is that the sender really
has no way
of knowing what the receiver is going to do with the information.
Therefore, in order for the sender's mail to go through, the
sender has
to make sure that both 2821 and 2822 identities are valid
which imposes
higher costs on the sender. For example, a forwarding service
may only
be interested in setting the 2821 identity correctly but
ignore the 2822.
The sender has no control over what the receiver does with the
information, and neither does this group.
I just went back to the Andy's original message and re-read it. My
concern was that the sender needs to know what to do in order to get his
email through. Leaving the forwarding case aside, and re-reading the
original message, Andy already addressed that point. Since there are two
validation paths, the sender is left with a choice of using either one
of them or both. Therefore, it is pretty clear to the sender as to what
he should do: either use correct 2821 values or correct 2822 values (or
both. The receiver will then run both validation paths against the identity.
I like the compromise - two specific choices for the sender about what
to do, and two validation paths for the receiver. With this, I withdraw
my original comment and endorse Andy's compromise.
Yakov
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"And this too shall come to pass"
-------