John Levine wrote: >>> DKIM makes no statement about the validity of a "sender" address. >>> d/ >> I guess I should have said Author address. > > DKIM makes no statement about the validity of an Author address.
I keep reading this but there is no technical merit to show there is any truth to it, and in fact the only thing that is probably the strongest validity is the Author Address. No matter how many times it is stated and repeated, it will never be true. If one wants this to be true, then remove the required binding the Author Address, A.K.A 5322.From. I will go on to suggest that this ongoing design confusion of trying to water it down with unrestricted resigners is what got this WG all bogged down in trying to teach the world that the From really means nothing but only the signer does. It even reduces the incentive for adopters to invest in Domain DKIM Signing because they really have no power over controlling who can take control of their own messages or those that purports to be from them. They have really little payoff. My point is it really hasn't help DKIM to continue to water down the validity of the author address. If it wasn't a required binding, then there begins some truth to the statement. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html