John Levine wrote: >> But whatever, we may need a straw poll followed by a clarification RFC, >> to settle once and for all whether Levine or Thomas is canon. > > Mike's version is what the RFC says. My version is the way that way > too many people will misunderstand it, no matter what it actually > says. > > You've illustrated my point very well. Thanks!
So can you help clarify your RFC 5617 work? I honestly feel most people who decide to support it are going to follow what its says, just like David MacQuigg posted here today: http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/msg05781.html So they will follow it verbatim. RFC 5617 section 4.2.1. Record Syntax writes: all All mail from the domain is signed with an Author Domain Signature. discardable All mail from the domain is signed with an Author Domain Signature. Furthermore, if a message arrives without a valid Author Domain Signature due to modification in transit, submission via a path without access to a signing key, or any other reason, the domain encourages the recipient(s) to discard it. However, once implementators do follow the above, I think you are saying, it will be problem for 3rd party signers? B.4. Third-Party Senders Another common use case is for a third party to enter into an agreement whereby that third party will send bulk or other mail on behalf of a designated Author or Author Domain, using that domain in the [RFC5322] From: or other headers. Due to the many and varied complexities of such agreements, third-party signing is not addressed this specification. This this mean, if I read you and thomas right, DKIM=ALL means 3rd party signers are possible without valid 1st signatures? CHAIRS: I believe this are honest WG questions. -- _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html