Douglas Otis wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2009, at 3:30 PM, DKIM Chair wrote:
>
>>> 1. On the content, we hashed out a few things that needed tweaking,
>>> and Dave has already posted about these. The response looks good.
>> The chairs note that Dave's proposed changes have rough consensus.
>> We understand that Dave has a new draft with the current version of
>> those changes ready to go. Since the changes have already been
>> agreed to, we think we do not need an explicit Working Group Last
>> Call on it.
>
> Is this an errata? What is the rush? Why prevent the WG from
> commenting on finalized changes? It is not clear what now represents
> "agreement" or "consensus". Excluding any WG input might be overly
> optimistic.
>
Its called Consensus by Osmosis. There is just too much so drama here. :-)
Anyway, FWIW, I have one nit regarding the original message submitter
------------------
6. RFC4871 Section 2.9 Signing Domain Identifier (SDID)
A single domain name that is the mandatory payload output of DKIM
and that refers to the identity claiming responsibility for
introduction of a message into the mail stream.
------------------
The SDID is not necessarily the identity for introducing a message
into a mail system. An AUTHOR can introduce/submit a message and
unbeknownst to him during the router/relay process, it may sign it,
resign it, or not. The process is not the originating submitter.
Suggestion: Add one single word:
A single domain name that is the mandatory payload output of DKIM
and that refers to the identity claiming responsibility for
introduction of a SIGNED message into the mail stream.
Background:
Example, using my junk gmail.com account:
[email protected]
At gmail.com web online setup, I have added a 2nd account to it:
[email protected]
I own winserver.com.
From my Thunderbird MUA, I can send email to gmail.com via port 587.
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Press SEND, gmail gets it and routes it to the boss.
When I get the mail at our beta.winserver.com site, the message source
has this:
DKIM-Signature: d=gmail.com; s=gamma; ....
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Sender: HLS <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
From: hector <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
I am introducing the message into the mail stream. Not GMAIL. This is
clearly identify by the Message-id:. The author is always the
responsible party for the message. The identity that submits it is
generally not going to be the signer process unless its a MUA doing
the signing.
At best, we can say that the SDID is responsible for introducing the
SIGNED message.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
