On 9/13/10 3:57 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote: > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:37:46 +0100, Steve Atkins > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sep 10, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> ..... If this negative event can be avoided by the simple > >> mechanism of using a mailing list specific "Message" From, then > >> that is a benefit. > > > > Rather than go into the general reasons why I think this is not > > something that ADSP users really want, I'll give a concrete > > example. > > What ADSP users want is irrelevant. This is about what MLMs want > (which is most likely to ensure that submitted messages reach the > whole of their list without problems).
There is the human aspect of recognizing the purported author. See: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eai-mailinglist-07 Where in the introduction there is this comment: ,--- ... Separate from these standardized list-specific header fields, and despite a history of interoperability problems from doing so, some lists alter or add header fields in an attempt to control where replies are sent. Such lists typically add or replace the "Reply-To" field and some add or replace the "Sender" field. Poorly-behaved lists may alter or replace other fields, including "From". '--- It also seems that both the downgraded and international versions of the email-address would need to be recoded. > > Lets say this mailing list rewrites the From: address in some > > reasonably mechanical manner, and the From: field of this message > > were rewritten as (making up syntax on the fly)... > > > > From: steve%blighty.com%[email protected] > > > > ... such that recipients (or their MUAs) know that this mail was > > sent by [email protected] via a mailing list at dkim.org. > > > > There's nothing to stop me from sending mail From: > > billing%paypal.com%[email protected], as the mailing list > > isn't using ADSP. > > Clearly, mailing lists that do things to the From: SHOULD (even MUST) > sign, and any RFC documenting my proposal would include that. > > But yes, you could currently send a message to this list From: that > address, but that has nothing to do with whether my suggestion is > adopted or not. I suspect you would soon find yourself blacklisted by > the MLM. Do you mean the MTA would become blacklisted or the subscriber being spoofed? DKIM does not identify the author. Defending the MLM might work after all subscribers and the MLM have adopted DKIM as a requirement for acceptance. Otherwise this would expect the MLM to check policy on any percent hack email-address without there being any defined standard. For example, VERP uses '=' as a replacement symbol for '@' when stacking addresses. BATV and SRS use '=' to isolate local-part components. The '%' symbol is understood by some operating systems to indicate a hex conversion is desired. :^( -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
