[ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description

[Douglas Otis]

On Aug 10, 2006, at 11:48 AM, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Hector Santos wrote:
>>
>> Maybe there is short circuit?
>>
>> Maybe I won't even bother with such nonsense multi-address from  
>> lines, which probably is going to break along some down stream  
>> anyway.  In all honesty, it is rare to encounter this, IMV.
>
> Read my previous message. It maybe rare now but what you ended up  
> doing is moving 3rd party senders to where they would change From  
> and add their name into it as 1st address and move or put what  
> would have been or was original From address as 2nd one, basically  
> they would be emulating current use of "Sender" (in fact they would  
> still use Sender as required by RFC2822 in cases of multi-address  
> From). I'm not saying its all bad, but its a change to current  
> email system practices.

Agreed.  This could be an expected outcome of a policy restriction  
placed upon the From address.

> BTW - In above scenario I'm actually more concerned with situations  
> where the intermediate party would >>CHANGE<< From header field -  
> same parties that currently add Sender. First of all I dont want  
> that happening to my emails no matter who they go through and 2nd  
> it will break existing signature if it existed.

Depending upon how common are the restrictive policies that prohibit  
other sources for a First Party Address, expect the First Party  
Address may  actually become a party or First Party Address(es).  An  
original signature being broken will not matter.  It would be  
illogical for the entity making the change to not also sign the  
message.  Handling multiple From addresses may become part of the new  
landscape.

-Doug