Dave Crocker wrote: > > > J>> At the end, I can't identify the reason why a mailing should add a >>> signature to a message, may be because I didn't understand how third >>> party signature can be used with a signer (i=) different from the >>> message Sender. Also I can't see how MUA could deal with message with >>> multiple From: . It is definitively not a common usage and it will not >>> be accepted by users because it suppose some modification in MUA. >> We should stay away from multiple From: addresses; MUA behavior is >> inconsistent (we have done a few experiments). > > Jim, > > What do you mean "stay away from"? Multiple From addresses are legal > and gets used occasionally, with existing MUAs. > > Unless DKIM is going to attempt to change RFC2822 rules, we cannot > have DKIM fail to handle a legal header case. Agreed; what I said wasn't very clear. What I meant was that we should avoid additional usage of multiple From fields as part of DKIM. For example, one way of making the signer address visible might be to put it in the From field as an additional author, e.g.:
From: "Jim Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Signed by ietf-dkim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'm not sure anyone is proposing that, but it could otherwise be seen as logical since some of the content came from me, and some (the message trailer, for example) came from the list manager. -Jim _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
