Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-02.txt

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Sat 19/May/2012 11:28:41 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> 
> I've also changed the document's state to Informational from BCP,
> now that I understand how we use the latter term here.

Just to make sure, I grasp that "here" BCP refers to issues internal
to the standardization process, as RFC 2026 auto-referentially states.
 Its Section 5, however, seems to mention that as the third of three
possibilities:

   A BCP document [...] is a vehicle by which the IETF community can
   define and ratify the community's best current thinking on a
   statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way
   to perform some operations or IETF process function.

> 
> Comments welcome.

One surprising statement is
				
   The following use of unbalanced quotation marks:

      To: "Joe <[e-mail]>

   should be interpreted as:

      To: "Joe <[e-mail]>"@example.net
				
   where "example.net" is the domain name or host name of the
   handling agent making the interpretation.

If that were a "From:" field, wouldn't it represent an attack path
against example.com's ADSP settings?  IMHO, a DKIM verifier should
make an exception to that rule, and tag the message as discardable, if
that's the case.