On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 06:32:25 -0400 "Hector Santos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "william(at)elan.net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Scott Kitterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday 09 August 2006 21:29, Hector Santos wrote: >>> >>>> It was my contention that the SSP should ALWAYS be done against the >>>> 2822.From regardless of how DKIM-Signature domain was bounded. >>>> >>> +1 >> >> Would you remind me how this would work with multiple address in >> the From field? [*] > >What's wrong with checking each one? I mean, why allow for a loophole?
First, I see this largely as a design issue, not a requirements issue, if it's not just a receiver policy issue. I would check each one. I would apply the most result I got. I.e. if a 2822.From address had a First Party Expected practice associated with it and that signature was missing, I would apply the appropriate receiver policy (I'd probably reject it, YMMV). Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
