On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 18:47:23 -, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it
wrote:
On 01/Nov/10 22:56, Douglas Otis wrote:
On 10/30/10 3:05 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 28/Oct/10 03:36, Douglas Otis wrote:
I'll repeat the example given previously. The multiple listing of a
header in the h=
On 02/Nov/10 22:58, Douglas Otis wrote:
On 11/2/10 11:47 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 01/Nov/10 22:56, Douglas Otis wrote:
If big-bank.com asserts a restrictive policy, the relevant author
address should make that message fail ADSP verification, since no
author domain signature
Presumption of RFC5322 compliance is the mistake made in DKIM and ADSP.
50% agreed. This mistake is only in DKIM, IMHO.
At this point, it would be helpful if you could propose specific language
for 4871bis. And if it's not presuming 5322 compliance, it would also be
helpful if you could say
On 11/3/10 6:28 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 02/Nov/10 22:58, Douglas Otis wrote:
On 11/2/10 11:47 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
If big-bank.com asserts a restrictive policy, the relevant author
address should make that message fail ADSP verification, since no
author domain signature
John R. Levine wrote:
Presumption of RFC5322 compliance is the mistake made in DKIM and ADSP.
50% agreed. This mistake is only in DKIM, IMHO.
At this point, it would be helpful if you could propose specific language
for 4871bis. And if it's not presuming 5322 compliance, it would also be
... Apparently, RFC 5617 already
provides for multiple author addresses. Section 3 reads
If a message has multiple Author Addresses, the ADSP lookups
SHOULD be performed independently on each address.
No, that wording applies to multiple addresses in a single From header. If
