[ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain

[Eliot Lear]

Damon wrote:
> +1
>
> Damon Sauer
>
> On 11/29/06, Douglas Otis <dotis at mail-abuse.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 29, 2006, at 3:42 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>
>> > Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I utterly fail to see why what is displayed to the user is of the
>> >> least relevance.
>> >
>> > Because it's very possible UAs will indicate whether a message is
>> > signed or not.  This is already done with various plugins.
>>
>> The same plug-ins can also verify an associative policy regarding
>> other headers as well.  Being signed might be for entities found in
>> the 2822.From, the 2822.Sender, or for the 2821.MailFrom (to help
>> ensure DSNs).

First of all, we are now talking about that which is not there, a signed 
2821.MailFrom, and we are discussing base, which this group is finished 
with.  So, it seems to me that we have really veered from the topic of a 
sender header.


>> Annotation of a message being signed by itself is of
>> little value.  Being "signed" and "recognized" is what is important
>> when the desire is to curtail spoofing.  

Sure.  And when we get there life will be peaches and cream.  But we 
need to transition to that point, and end users should be able to 
benefit from DKIM + the good work that people like Paul Hoffman are 
doing, so that SPs themselves don't become a bottleneck to deployment.

Eliot