Re: [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft

2007-10-22 Thread Charles Lindsey
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:07:30 +0100, Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 19, 2007, at 8:46 AM, Jim Fenton wrote: 4871 indeed uses a broad notion of responsibility. However, in the case where the signing address is the same* as some other header field, such as 2822.From, I don't

Re: [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft

2007-10-22 Thread Jon Callas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 So if he said i=subdomain.example.com, then surely the From/Sender can be expected to be from that subdomain; and if he said [EMAIL PROTECTED], then surely recipients can assume that 'someone' had indeed played some part in sending it.

Re: [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft

2007-10-22 Thread Mark Delany
On Oct 22, 2007, at 1:37 PM, Jon Callas wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 So if he said i=subdomain.example.com, then surely the From/Sender can be expected to be from that subdomain; and if he said [EMAIL PROTECTED], then surely recipients can assume that 'someone' had

Re: [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft

2007-10-22 Thread Douglas Otis
On Oct 22, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Mark Delany wrote: On Oct 22, 2007, at 1:37 PM, Jon Callas wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 So if he said i=subdomain.example.com, then surely the From/Sender can be expected to be from that subdomain; and if he said [EMAIL PROTECTED], then