[ietf-dkim] Practices protocol naming poll (Closing issue 1550)

[Dave Crocker]

Sandy Wills wrote:
> Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Exactly which value of exactly which field or command are you referring to?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> And how does your desire related to the current *SP specification, which 
>> explicitly calls for using the value(s) in the rfc2822.From field?
> 
> I don't see how we can get a useful check from this header line:
> 
> From: Me at AOL.com, You at Hotmail.com, Him at gmail.com, Her at yahoo.com

The efficacy of the current specification is a continuing question among many
folk.  Nonetheless, the From field is what it specifies.

And it seems that your concern relates to some other source of information. 
Hence, not this specification.

The question issues by the Chairs is about naming of the current specification, 
not some other possible spec.


> An implementation of SSP can start with a check for Sender: simply because if
>  it exists, that's the sender.  One test and it's done.  Only if that check 

And your preference for SSP remains a bit confusing, since that name has only 
ever been applied to a version of the current specification and, hence, only to 
using a value from the rfc2822.From field.


>> Since the word "sender" is demonstrably ambiguous, why do you prefer it?
> 
> I see no ambiguity in rfc2822 section 3.6.2. Originator fields, which I 
> paraphrase here:
> 
> If there is only one "From" address, that's the sender.  If there is more 
> than one address in the "From" field, creating ambiguity on who it's from, 
> then there will be a separate field "Sender" who is the sender.

The word "Originator" refers to the combination of RFC2822 fields:  From, 
Sender, and Reply-to.  That's 3 fields.



> No room for confusion here.  I know that you know 2822 better than I do, so 
> I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you explain to me where you find
>  the term "Sender" ambiguous? Would you prefer the term "Originator", which 
> means the same thing but takes longer to say and type?  When two ways of 
> saying something appear equivalent, I prefer the more common/simpler/shorter 
> way.

The word you are using is neither Originator nor From.

But that's not the word you are using. It's "sender".

hat term is commonly used for values ranging across  rfc2822.From, 
rfc2822.Sender, rfc2821.Received, rfc2821.MailFrom, rfc2821.Helo/Ehlo, and 
client SMTP IP Address.

That rates as ambiguous.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net