On Apr 9, 2009, at 11:33 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
2. Unless folks strongly object, I propose *not* changing the Errata/
Update text about MUA, since the goal of the Update is to focus on
other issues. Rather, I suggest we defer this more substantive
issue with the MUA-related text to the RFC4871bis effort.
This MUA consideration changes the role intended for the i= value.
Either include a statement about the i= value's possible role, or
remove the MUA considerations for later. As currently stated, this
information is incorrect. This might expose recipients to intra-
domain exploits when adopted as suggested. A simple example of
possible confusion would be when the same domain hosts a mailing-list.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to