On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Dave CROCKER <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > > > On 4/30/2010 8:32 AM, Jeff Macdonald wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Dave CROCKER<d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> I wrote: >>>> and forging the From address >>> >>> It's not forged: > > ... >>> >>> The use of that word, for this situation, is simply incorrect. > > ... >> >> Perhaps poorly chosen words. But I think most understood the intent. > > Actually, most seem not to. They really believe the string is "invalid" or > at least that its presence in that form is "wrong". > > If we are doing serious technical work, we need to be serious in our use of > terminology. Among the various terms that I regularly rant about, the > long-standing mischaracterization of the From: string as "forged" is > particularly egregious. And my rant is not at you. It's at the community, > for having established the practise of using the term. >
don't ever stop banging that drum. >> I'm willing to go from a world where any system can use my From to one >> where only the systems I say can. And that means changes. > > That's an example of the problem in using the term: Much discussion about > DKIM presume far more end-to-end control by authors or senders than they > will ever have. Murray, John, Dave and Mike: I apologize for going off on a tangent. I just keep asking myself "what if". :) I like John's suggestion of taking Brett's ideas to ASRG. -- Jeff Macdonald Ayer, MA _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
