Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I went through the draft and marked it up. I'll break these up into
> individual messages for each comment. I'll start with a context diff of the
> draft and proposed changes and then give a discussion of why...
>
> *** 321,328 ****
> unsigned outweights the risk of illegitimate mail being delivered in
> the eyes of the sender.
>
> ! 1. A purportedly sends to B with a missing or broken DKIM signature
> ! from A
>
> 2. B would like to know whether that is an acceptable state of
> affairs.
> --- 321,328 ----
> unsigned outweights the risk of illegitimate mail being delivered in
> the eyes of the sender.
>
> ! 1. Mail with a RFC2822.From A is sent to B with a missing or broken
> ! DKIM signature
>
> 2. B would like to know whether that is an acceptable state of
> affairs.
> ***************
>
> I think that saying mail with an RFC2822.From A is clearer than A purportedly
> sends. Also, Purported is used in Sender ID PRA (Purported Responsible
> Address) and so use of that word in this context might be confusing for some.
-1
I want companies such as eCard senders or News Agencies to be able to 1)
send a message on my behalf while 2) marking themselves as the sender
and 3) being able to sign the message. This minimally requires support
for RFC2822.Sender as well as RFC2822.From.
I *would* support changing it to
1. Mail with a RFC2822.From or RFC2822.Sender A is sent to B with a
missing or broken DKIM signature
This has nothing to do with PRA and its support for Resent-From and/or
Resent-Sender.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
