Andy said, quoting Meng:
[11:05:42] <mengwong> if submitter is not present, we fall back to
mail-from. people are missing this.
From both my reading of the docs, and what I believe was the intent of
the docs, this is wrong.
If submitter is missing, one needs to get the PRA from the data of the
message. (Of course, with submitter one must still verify that
submitter == PRA and reject the message otherwise.)
I think that Meng may be referring to the text that states that at some
date in the future (which hasn't been specified yet), one may treat the
absence of submitter as submitter == mail-from. However, this can only
occur after very wide-spread adoption of submitter-aware MTAs, and after
another standards action.
-- jimbo
Internet commerce will never really take off until you can buy something
online without getting spammed by the vendor.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Andrew
Newton
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 9:08 AM
To: ietf mxcomp "(e-mail)
Subject: What Meng said
In rereading the Jabber logs and reading the recent threads on
SUBMITTER, I'd like to point everyone to a simple sentence Meng wrote
in the Jabber session:
http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-logs/marid(_at_)ietf(_dot_)xmpp(_dot_)org/2004-08-04.html
In defense of "people", I reread marid-submitter and marid-core this
morning and could not find the place where this was stated. However,
this statement is significant. I'm not saying it is a good or bad
idea, but it profoundly changes how SUBMITTER is used, the nexus of
SUBMITTER and PRA, and even the semantics of the RR version identifier.
-andy