[ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author
breaks email semantics
chl at clerew.man.ac.uk
Tue Jan 15 04:01:34 PST 2008
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:33:37 -0000, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>> 1525 Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email
>> semantics new dkim
>> Nobody 0 dhc at dcrocker.net 9 days ago 9 days ago 0
> Your reading of the archive shows rather more complete and definitive
> discussion than mine. In fact I read the archive as tending in the
> direction of changing the specification to use Sender: rather than From.
> Would you please explain the basis for assessing that this topic got
> sufficient discussion and that there was rough consensus on it?
> Since this specification modifies RFC2822 that fact needs explicit
> The current SSP language modifies RFC2822, and so there should be
> considerable clarity about the need, the benefit, and the impact.
Indeed. I don't like that "1st author" bit.
If there are multiple authors, then whichever one is also the Sender
should be the one that the signature should relate to.
If the Sender is none of them (the secretary sent it on behalf of them
all), then there is a problem. In that case I might be happy for the
Sender to match the signature, or even to go back to a "first author",
though I don't really see what is wrong with an "at least one author".
It the Sender is absent with multiple authors, then the message if not RFC
2822 compliant, and all bets are off.
And if the signature is "restricted" (by g= or whatever), then the rules
might be different.
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Email: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
More information about the ietf-dkim