On 4/29/2010 2:04 PM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Dave CROCKER<[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think you are raising the (much) larger question of constraining the
>> nature of
>> changes made by MLMs. Since they [sic] are actually posting an entirely new
>> message,
>
> and forging the From address
It's not forged:
"to imitate fraudulently"
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forge>
The use of that word, for this situation, is simply incorrect.
And the retention of the original posting's From: string is quite simply valid.
The fact that it is causing a problem for some add-on technologies does not,
post hoc, render the string invalid.
>> they have the legitimate freedom to do what they want to it.
>
> is it really legitimate in today's world?
Yes. Until the community develops, adopts and uses some alternative model,
retention of the original posting's From: string has specific meaning that
remains essential for mailing list semantics.
>> However, some can
>> choose to participate in that much more constrained role, looking more like a
>> relaying MTA than a modifying intermediary.
>
> DKIM should be able to survive that.
And there should be world peace. Our sharing such a wish does not, post hoc,
render the string invalid.
d/
ps. DKIM /can/ survive that. Merely use l=0 and hash only the From: field or
perhaps From: and Date: or perhaps... The fact that the community considers
that alternative inadequate is understandable, but again, this add-on
technology
(DKIM) does not have the right to come in and declare well-established existing
practice invalid.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
