[ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first
Author breaks email semantics
jmacdonald at e-dialog.com
Tue Jan 29 09:52:57 PST 2008
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:
> 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
More information about the ietf-dkim