[mail-vet-discuss] Draft as of 7/17/2007

[SM]

Hi Murray,
At 15:50 07-08-2007, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>I'm not sure I agree.  I can see legitimacy in the idea of an expert 
>mode which, if selected, does reveal the raw data.

It's better not to qualify end-users.


>>In Section 3, it is stated that:
>>
>>    "An MTA compliant with this specification MUST add this header field
>>    (after performing one or more sender authentication tests)"
>>
>>I assume that you mean the sending mailbox was authenticated.  If 
>>so, that would not cover DKIM where a signing domain claims responsibility.
>I guess we're running into a blurring between "sender" and 
>"signer".  Is this a major point of concern?  Or is it sufficient 
>simply to define my use of "sender" to include the "signer" case, 
>perhaps citing DKIM as an example?

It may be a point someone would raise during the last call.  Defining 
sender to include the "signer" case of DKIM is not the right approach 
in my opinion.  If authentication tests is used instead of sender 
authentication tests, it would encompass the signer case.

Regards,
-sm