Re: Signed Receipts and Mail Lists

["Sean P. Turner" <[e-mail]>]

Graeme,

I'm not sure that the MLA returns a receipt on behalf of the ML members. 
 I looked through ESS again and I couldn't find anything that said if a 
message enters an MLA with a signed receipt request that it shouldn't or 
should return a receipt.    Typically (I think), originators want to 
know that the final recipient got the message not whether the MLA got it.

Then again maybe I didn't understand your scenario.

spt

Graeme Lunt wrote:

>Hi,
>
>We have recently encountered an issue when trying to correlate signed
>receipts when using mail lists.
>
>Issue:
>
>When a MLA supports multiple lists using a single public/private key
>pair, it appears that there is insufficient information within a signed
>receipt generated by the MLA to determine to which recipient the signed
>receipt relates. 
>
>Take the case where a message is sent to two recipients, R1 and R2, and
>the user makes an "all" signed receipt request.
>
>R1 is actually a Mail List supported by an MLA using a single
>public/private key pair, MLA1.
>
>MLA1 receives the message for R1, expands the list, and sends a signed
>receipt "on behalf of" R1 back to the originator.
>
>The originator can identify the message to which the signed receipt
>relates (from the signedContentIdentifier) but not the recipient as the
>signature on the receipt is from MLA1. There is no way to relate this
>receipt to either R1 or R2.
>
>Possible resolution:
>
>One way to resolve this problem would be to add an extension to the
>Receipt syntax to include
>
>   ....
>   receiptFrom GeneralNames OPTIONAL
>}
>
>This field would allow the indication of whom the signed receipt was
>sent from and consequently correlation with the original recipient list.
>This also allows other scenarios where a third party may acknowledge
>receipt for a given recipient for example an assistant reading a
>managers mail. 
>
>This functionality is comparable to that of the "IPM Intended Recipient"
>field of an X.400 IPN.
>
>Also, if considering changing the Receipt structure it may be worthwhile
>adding an extension bucket at the same time (or even to support
>receiptFrom).
>
>Am I missing something?
>
>Graeme
>
>
>  
>