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

[MH Michael Hammer (5304)]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org 
>[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
>Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:41 PM
>To: Jeff Macdonald
>Cc: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
>Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to 
>posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics
>
>
>
>Jeff Macdonald 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?
>
>Seems so:
>
>   <http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0169.html>
>
>

"Seems so" is exactly the correct phrase..... because we don't really
know - and currently can't generally know - whether the claim of agency
by the identity in the sender field is an authorized, and thus valid
claim.....


Signed on behalf of Dave Crocker by Michael Hammer