[ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent

[Michael Thomas]

Frank Ellermann wrote:

>Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>  
>
>>or what?
>>    
>>
>
>It's about mail with one or more Resent-From or Resent-Sender
>header fields as far as I'm concerned.
>
>  
>
>>all of the discussion about signing by Alice is irrelevant,
>>since the later focus seems to be on signing by the
>>re-poster, Bob.
>>    
>>
>
>Whatever SSP does (and the more interesting case is a "Bob" who
>is completely DKIM-unaware), the mail should not be rejected
>by the next receiver(s) no matter what Alice's SSP says.  Bob
>is perfectly entitled to resend a mail he got using the header
>fields specified in STD 11 or 2822.
>
>Where "reject" is of course the least problematic outcome, but
>"annotate as suspicious", the weasel words for "delete", would
>be wrong.
>  
>
I agree, and I'd appreciate some help on how to make this clear. The
corresponding requirement is actually in the form of a negative in
requirement #12.

Maybe I just need some forward references in the scenarios to the
fundamental corresponding requirements?

       Mike