[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] RFC2821bis discussion of DKIM and SPF (was Re: Error in RFC 5321 concerning SPF and DKIM)

2014-07-26 11:22:23
The proverbial baby out (non-list operations) was thrown out and never 
appropriately dealt with. If we need a "DKIM change" (errata), this would be a 
good one -- relax the signer domain alignment of the AUID "Agent/User Identity" 
as so many people wanted. Another errata would be to add the official 
recognition for the ADID "Author Domain Identity" which got us into this mess 
now by trying to dismiss its importance.

Hector Santos

On Jul 26, 2014, at 11:16 AM, "John Levine" <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:

When i= was considered important in DKIM, many people considered it a 
valid way to verify the identity of the sender of a message, given that

   *) it was actually used
   *) it really did map into the name used with the From: header

So the text about "belongs to the person who actually sent the message" 
could be considered a reference to the use of i=.

Well, yes, and no.  In retrospect, that was always a failure of
communication.  The i= bit came from people in corporate environments
where the mail system is locked down, and you can't put anyone's
return address but your own on your mail.  But, of course, there are a
lot of mail systems, and only some of them are like that.


ietf-smtp mailing list

ietf-smtp mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>