[ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing domain
"Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Tue, 28 November 2006 12:54 UTC
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gp2TV-00024K-A9 for ietf-dkim-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:54:13 -0500
Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gp2T4-0003D9-KV for ietf-dkim-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:53:53 -0500
Received: from sb7.songbird.com (sb7.songbird.com [127.0.0.1]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kASCn91l008991; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:49:10 -0800
Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net (lon-mail-3.gradwell.net [193.111.201.127]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kASCn3jw008969 for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:49:03 -0800
Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3*clerew*man&ac*uk) by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.237) id 456c3030.2e11.51 for ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:48:48 +0000 (envelope-sender <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>)
Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kASCmjDY027785 for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:48:47 GMT
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:48:43 -0000
To: DKIM <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
References: <198A730C2044DE4A96749D13E167AD37E7E714@MOU1WNEXMB04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <91A3FD7B-8B4A-4F78-9C5F-9BC66F86614D@mail-abuse.org> <4563C8D8.40909@santronics.com> <45647C86.36F3@xyzzy.claranet.de> <45648A1A.9030302@santronics.com> <op.tjg51tkv6hl8nm@clerew.man.ac.uk> <4567E1D7.6050002@cisco.com> <op.tjod3xh26hl8nm@clerew.man.ac.uk> <456AE2F6.2040809@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <op.tjp8jhoh6hl8nm@clerew.man.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <456AE2F6.2040809@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Opera M2/8.01 (SunOS, build 1204)
X-Songbird: Clean, Clean
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing domain
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM Discussion List <ietf-dkim.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird-From: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by sb7.songbird.com id kASCn91l008991
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 082a9cbf4d599f360ac7f815372a6a15
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:07:02 -0000, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > Charles Lindsey wrote: >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 06:25:27 -0000, Jim Fenton <fenton@cisco.com> wrote: >> >>> It's not entirely forgotten; section 2.3 of draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02 >>> discusses multiple From addresses. We thought about resolving the >>> ambiguity by (1) arbitrarily picking the first address in the From >>> header field, (2) picking the address in the Sender header field, or >>> (3) querying SSP for all addresses in the From header field, and >>> combining them somehow. We picked (1), ... >> And there I think you picked the wrong one. > > Fair enough that you disagree, but the main point though is that > the WG reached rough consensus. > >> I have seen sufficient comments from others to the effect that the >> Sender needs to be looked at in many situations that this matter >> probably ought to be reviewed (does that mean raising an Issue?). > > No. For base, Barry and I are using a scheme where re-opening a > decided issue (which is what you'd presumably like in this case) > requires N people supporting, for some informally defined, but > increasing, value of N .... That is fair comment, but there seem to be an awful lot of people still discussing the Role of Sender (and even List-ID and Return-Path) as possible signing domains. OK, this is a petition for reopening this Issue. That gives 1 vote, but you will need lots more to take action. So I invite anyone else who supports this view to reply with a +1. If there is insufficient support, then I will shut up. Here are a few examples of recent posts which seem to want to explore these alternatives: John Glube 15 Nov 2006 14:33:54 -0500 Frank Ellerman 22 Nov 2006 21:24:52 +0100 Hector Santos 24 Nov 2006 09:17:46 -0500 Michael Thomas 24 Nov 2006 08:47:13 -0800 Douglas Otis 27 Nov 2006 14:20:53 -0800 Charles Lindsey 27 Nov 2006 12:53:47 -0000 -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
- [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no J.D. Falk
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no Paul Hoffman
- RE: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no Douglas Otis
- [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Hector Santos
- RE: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM sig… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM… Charles Lindsey
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing … Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Douglas Otis
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM… Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Charles Lindsey
- [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Hector Santos
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Hector Santos
- [ietf-dkim] OT: Return-Path considerations (was: … Frank Ellermann
- [ietf-dkim] EAI + SSP status (was: "I sign everyt… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Stephen Farrell
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Stephen Farrell
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Stephen Farrell
- [ietf-dkim] Last calls for lemonade (was: ISSUE: … Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM… Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Charles Lindsey
- [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Is "sender" in 4.1 4th paragra… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM… Eliot Lear
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Michael Thomas
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM… Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… william(at)elan.net
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Jim Fenton
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Jim Fenton
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… william(at)elan.net
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Eliot Lear
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Eliot Lear
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM… Frank Ellermann
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: news and lists again, was "I … John Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of"D… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Hector Santos
- [ietf-dkim] Resend-cruft (was: ISSUE: Better defi… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Jim Fenton
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Stephen Farrell
- [ietf-dkim] Future uses of DKIM in Netnews (was: … Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Future uses of DKIM in Netnews (w… Charles Lindsey
- [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing doma… Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Eliot Lear
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing … Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Hector Santos
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing … Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing … John Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing … Steve Atkins
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing … Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing … Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Eliot Lear
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing … Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing … Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… william(at)elan.net
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Eliot Lear
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Scott Kitterman
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Bill.Oxley
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Charles Lindsey
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Wietse Venema
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Hector Santos
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Bill.Oxley
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… John Glube
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… John Glube
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Steve Atkins
- [ietf-dkim] receiver role in ssp Bill.Oxley
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as sign… Douglas Otis