On Tuesday 28 November 2006 10:17, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Hector Santos wrote: > > Why are you stuck on Sender? It is not the author or owner of the > > message and that is whats important in DKIM. > > If the sender is different from the From address(es) it's clearly > not the author. But at that time it's the owner, responsible for > many technical details, Dave's "secy" in RFC 733. > > For Resend-* the owner at that time is the "resender", responsible > for picking this way to forward the mail to somebody else. It should > work often. But not in scenarios where an anti-replay mechanism or > something else stripped important (for DKIM) header fields of the > original sender (author or secy). Or if the original mail is old. > > >> this is a petition for reopening this Issue. That gives 1 vote, but > >> you will need lots more to take action. So I invite anyone else who > >> supports this view to reply with a +1. > > +1 Hector's "owner" proposal makes me nervous, the owner is somebody > who has a mail, it can be the receiver, a secy, a list, a gateway, ...
So how do we start down this path without ending up with PRA? 2822.From is the only identity that is reliably displayed to the end user. It is also a required part of the message. As soon as you grant 2822.Sender the same role as 2822.From in SSP, then any anti-forgery potential inherent in SSP (let's not argue that one again - just saying to the extent there is any) has been seriously diluted. Follow this trail to the end and you end up protecting resent-sender again. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
