On 5/11/04 at 2:33 PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
Yes, I did notice that. Unfortunately, the concern stands.
There is a fundamental difference between having an authority
relationship between two fields -- such as RFC2822.Sender _setting_
RFC2821.MailFrom -- versus requiring any portion of the values in
the two fields to be the same.
OK, clearly I need to go back to something you said in your previous
message, because you are simply missing my point. Earlier you wrote:
In any event, we need to establish a very explicit working group
rough consensus about the semantics of RFC2821.MailFrom, given its
fundamental role in working group discussions.
I think this is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. We do not need any such
establishment of what RFC2821.MailFrom means because that has NOTHING
AT ALL to do with my proposal. My proposal does not assume that the
receiving server knows the meaning of RFC2821.MailFrom, and it
doesn't assume it has anything to do with RFC2822.Sender. It is VOID
OF SEMANTICS in my proposal. It is the place where you get the domain
to check. Full stop. My proposal would work perfectly well if
RFC2821.MailFrom meant "where the mail came from" or if it meant
something completely different. And my proposal would work perfectly
well if the place where you got the domain was RFC2821.EHLO. It has
nothing at all to do with the semantics of the proposal.
As I said earlier, please remove use of the word "from" in the 3
places where I used that word in a way that set you on this. Replace
it with "associated with". The semantics of RFC2821.MailFrom have
NOTHING AT ALL to do with the use of that word in those sentences.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102