Subject: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter

From: Roy Badami <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 00:42:36 +0100

Not really technical, but more technical than editorial...

Just to reiterate a point I made prior to last call (which got no
feedback, positive or negative).

The SUBMITTER parameter was fine as a working name (as was FRED, DAVE,
and all the rest of the names) but now that we're all in agreement
that the name of the identity in question is the PRA, the obvious name
for the parameter to identify the PRA is "PRA".

    MAIL FROM:<foo@bar> PRA=<baz@qux>

is far more natural than the SUBMITTER alternative.

	-roy

---

From: Mark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 00:51:13 GMT

> is far more natural than the SUBMITTER alternative.

I was more than happy even using the existing ENVID for this purpose. ;)
Something like:

Mail from: <original@sender> ENVID=<forwarding@entity>

Then we could have all used it tomorrow. I know, that is not what RFC 1891,
section 5.4, meant it for; but it would have been fine by me. :)

- Mark

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:39:45 +0200

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 12:42:36AM +0100,
 Roy Badami <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 17 lines which said:

> The SUBMITTER parameter was fine as a working name (as was FRED,
> DAVE, and all the rest of the names) but now that we're all in
> agreement athat the name of the identity in question is the PRA, the
> obvious name for the parameter to identify the PRA is "PRA".

IMHO, we should do quite the opposite: get rid of every mention of
-pra in the -submitter draft to be able to drop -pra (because of
patent issues) while keeping -submitter (which is IMHO an useful
addition to SPF-classic, which helps to solve the forwarding problem
which cripples SPF-classic).

---

From: Matt Sergeant <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:18:52 +0100

> which cripples SPF-classic).

You cannot possibly do SUBMITTER without -pra because otherwise forging 
SUBMITTER will be trivial and undetectable.

Matt.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:29:38 +0200

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:18:52AM +0100,
 Matt Sergeant <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 27 lines which said:

> You cannot possibly do SUBMITTER without -pra because otherwise
> forging SUBMITTER will be trivial and undetectable.

Correction: You cannot possibly do SUBMITTER without consistency
checking with the RFC 2822 headers because otherwise forging SUBMITTER
will be trivial and undetectable.

Alternative: You cannot possibly do SUBMITTER without recording and
displaying the SUBMITTER because otherwise forging SUBMITTER will be
trivial and undetectable.

---

From: Matt Sergeant <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 14:01:08 +0100

> trivial and undetectable.

Right. I think this is a better implementation option.

Matt.

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 08:37:58 -0500

> is far more natural than the SUBMITTER alternative.

I agree with this and made the same suggested during the IETF-60
jabber session.  (See
http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-logs/[email-masked]/2004-08-04.html
11:19:05)  Unlike your message to this list, both Meng and Marshall
gave positive feedback.  (I suspect your message was just overlooked
due to the volume of IPR messages.)

So, I think we can count at least four people who would like to see
SUBMITTER= renamed to PRA=.

-wayne