On Aug 10, 2006, at 11:48 AM, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Hector Santos wrote:
Maybe there is short circuit?
Maybe I won't even bother with such nonsense multi-address from
lines, which probably is going to break along some down stream
anyway. In all honesty, it is rare to encounter this, IMV.
Read my previous message. It maybe rare now but what you ended up
doing is moving 3rd party senders to where they would change From
and add their name into it as 1st address and move or put what
would have been or was original From address as 2nd one, basically
they would be emulating current use of "Sender" (in fact they would
still use Sender as required by RFC2822 in cases of multi-address
From). I'm not saying its all bad, but its a change to current
email system practices.
Agreed. This could be an expected outcome of a policy restriction
placed upon the From address.
BTW - In above scenario I'm actually more concerned with situations
where the intermediate party would >>CHANGE<< From header field -
same parties that currently add Sender. First of all I dont want
that happening to my emails no matter who they go through and 2nd
it will break existing signature if it existed.
Depending upon how common are the restrictive policies that prohibit
other sources for a First Party Address, expect the First Party
Address may actually become a party or First Party Address(es). An
original signature being broken will not matter. It would be
illogical for the entity making the change to not also sign the
message. Handling multiple From addresses may become part of the new
landscape.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
