Just to play Devils advocate... There is a third address to be considered, the Reply-to. This is a specific request from the originator of the message to reply to another address. If it is present we ought not reply to either of the other 2 addresses. Regards, Bartley O'Malley Citibank NA Lewisham House 25 Molesworth Street London SE13 7EX England Tel +44-020-7500-6473 Fax +44-020-7500-8880 -----Original Message----- From: phoffman [SMTP:phoffman@xxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 12:01 AM To: ietf-smime Cc: phoffman Subject: Re: Problem for public CAs At 04:10 PM 2/14/00 -0700, Bob Jueneman wrote: >Instead, in the case of a signed message the From address should be viewed >as secondary, and the certificate contents the primary information. From a security standpoint, this is right. From a UI standpoint, it might not be. Assume I have a different email address in my cert than in the From: header of a message I send you, that your S/MIME client has informed you of that, and you agreed. Now you want to reply to my message. You probably don't want to reply to the email address in my cert, but you might. There are essentially two From vales: the certificate one and the insecure-and-possibly-altered one. >Of course, we have to face the fact that NEITHER the DN nor the RFC822 address >may be particularly relevant or informative. Exactly right. And, no, I'm not proposing a solution here. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
<<attachment: WINMAIL.DAT>>