I think I am missing something DKIM base crypto claiming responsibility of the singing domain
SSP Senders signing policy, usage statement of DKIM by sender ASP Authors signing policy who is not clearly a sender or a member of the signing domain but wants to assert a policy anyway MUA how to reliably display something useful about the above information Am I correctly framing the thread? thanks, Bill -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Scott Kitterman Sent: Wed 1/16/2008 5:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics On Wednesday 16 January 2008 16:49, Arvel Hathcock wrote: > Given that it would solve the problem described in 1525 and also bring > us closer to a consensus position perhaps this thread should discuss > what is lost through utilization of the Sender header in at least some > cases. If it's allowed, then it's trivial to construct messages for which the identity used in SSP is likely not the one displayed to the end user. Then I'd really have to ask myself what we are trying to accomplish. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
