It's kind of a major rewrite, including even the filename and title of
this document, to change it all from "sender authentication" to "message
authentication" or something like that. Is that really necessary?
Well, given that DKIM permits signatures by signers that are not the
sender, and we have plausible usage scenarios for them, it really has
to handle them.
Or is there perhaps a definition for "sender" we can give near the
top of the document explaining that we're referring to the agent
asserting authenticity/ownership of the message?
That would be OK, but I think it'd be better to fix the wording to say
what we mean. It's not that hard, you don't have to change the draft
filename so you won't screw up the I-D bots.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html