On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:55:40AM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy allegedly wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Hector Santos > > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 11:42 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] marketing dkim > > > > Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > > > > No doubt some do validate the From: field. Others merely mean "the > > > message went through my MTA". Any assertion of From: field assessment > > > is therefore far outside the scope of the DKIM base specification. > > > > This is hard to grasp and conflicts with the DKIM base specification > > which makes the 5322.FROM a fundamentally required binding hashed > > entity in the DKIM signature manufacturing.
> I don't know what you mean by "binding". DKIM doesn't say From: has > to contain any particular value, only that it has to be one of the > signed fields. I don't know about binding either, but my point, before this sub-thread is completely lost, is that the suggestion that a "caring provider" put in some user identifiable token amounts to the same thing as asking a "caring provider" to ensure that 822.From can be used as a user identifiable token. In other words, there is no need to invent anything new here to achieve the OP's result. After all, an uncaring provider means that >From is as reliable as any other user identifiable token, which is to say, not at all. So, assuming you can determine a caring provider, then ask them to be careful about 822.From rather than ask them to invent and insert some other user identifiable token. Note: I'm not necessarily advocating the OP's suggestion, just saying no new token needs to be invented to support it - instead, just make the recommendation to "caring providers". Job done. Move along. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
