----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Hector Santos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'd have to agree with Wietse's interpretation here. Anything you > infer about the rfc2822.from is something you're doing after (or > in parallel with, whatever) DKIM-base processing. > > And I don't accept that this means there are batteries missing > or any other negative analogy. > > And I further believe that the position as stated by Wietse > does represent the consensus of the WG, so I don't think we > should continue to argue the merits or otherwise of various > possibilities for DKIM-base signature semantics. Excuse me? Then are we going to change the DKIM-BASE document? It is not a mistake to suggest there is no statement or implication of the MUST has 2822.From mandate. Section 5.4 clearly goes into what headers should be considered for specific reasons. There is a strong reason for that. Nevertheless, I don't dispute the common sense, already known, semantics as Wietse puts it. He said nothing new. For that I could easily say +1 too. But it doesn't solve the problem that is being addressed. -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
