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

[Jeff Macdonald]

Sorry for the very late posting. I realize there are lots of replies to
this, but I have trouble keeping thoughts straight after reading a long
thread, so I'll just add my 2 cents now:

On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 09:46:26AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
<snip>

> In any event, "on behalf of" is key wording that permits more flexibility 
> than you seem to be acknowledging.  Note, for example, that the agent 
> specified in the Sender field is acting "on behalf of" the author.

Is that agent authorized to work "on behalf of" the author?


> Whereas SSP began as a simple idea as a means of deciding whether an 
> unsigned message should have been signed, it has morphed into an effort to 
> validate the From field.  That is a very, very different goal.
>
> While DKIM has the goal of assigning *any* identity to a message, so that 
> that identity can be assessed, the current work on SSP is attempting to 
> instead validate authorship.


DKIM needs to say what part of DKIM asserts a new identity. What is the
output of DKIM? And should that output be treated as opaque.



-- 
:: Jeff Macdonald | Director of Messaging Technologies
:: e-Dialog | jmacdonald at e-dialog.com
:: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421
:: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118
:: www.e-dialog.com