[ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics

[Bill.Oxley at cox.com]

I think I am missing something
DKIM base crypto claiming responsibility of the singing domain

SSP Senders signing policy, usage statement of DKIM by sender

ASP Authors signing policy who is not clearly a sender or a member of the signing domain but wants to assert a policy anyway

MUA how to reliably display something useful about the above information

Am I correctly framing the thread?
thanks,
Bill
 


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org on behalf of Scott Kitterman
Sent: Wed 1/16/2008 5:17 PM
To: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics
 
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 16:49, Arvel Hathcock wrote:

> Given that it would solve the problem described in 1525 and also bring
> us closer to a consensus position perhaps this thread should discuss
> what is lost through utilization of the Sender header in at least some
> cases.

If it's allowed, then it's trivial to construct messages for which the 
identity used in SSP is likely not the one displayed to the end user.  Then 
I'd really have to ask myself what we are trying to accomplish.

Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html