>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker >Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:41 PM >To: Jeff Macdonald >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to >posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics > > > >Jeff Macdonald wrote: >>> In any event, "on behalf of" is key wording that permits more >>> flexibility than you seem to be acknowledging. Note, for example, >>> that the agent specified in the Sender field is acting "on >behalf of" >>> the author. >> >> Is that agent authorized to work "on behalf of" the author? > >Seems so: > > <http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0169.html> > >
"Seems so" is exactly the correct phrase..... because we don't really know - and currently can't generally know - whether the claim of agency by the identity in the sender field is an authorized, and thus valid claim..... Signed on behalf of Dave Crocker by Michael Hammer _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
