Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Charles Lindsey wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 06:25:27 -0000, Jim Fenton <[e-mail]> 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), because we don't know whether 
>> the MUA is going to display the Sender address or not, and we felt 
>> that it is likely that it will display the first From address regardless.
> 
> 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 (the value increases as we get closer to an
RFC). Absent an absolute storm of support, we're done on this
(and by a storm I mean >>1 voices).

So sorry but its just too late,
Stephen.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html