> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim- > boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER > Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 12:15 PM > To: Jeff Macdonald > Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Wrong Discussion - was Why mailing lists should > strip DKIM signatures > > > > 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. >
I seem to remember this discussion in the distant past and there overall people seemed to have less difficulty with the use of the term "spoof" or "spoofing" instead of "forge" or forging". If not this term then it would be appropriate to come to a consensus on a term that represents this practice. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
