Re: MTS transparency and anonymity


Keith Moore wrote:

I'd much rather define some convention for a non-replyable
address (e.g. From: <anonymous(_at_)[]> ) which is at least
syntactically compatible with RFC [2]822,


Nice idea, please don't forget to update BCP 32.  Bye, Frank

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, (continued) Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Charles Lindsey Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, ned+ietf-822 Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Bruce Lilly Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, ned+ietf-822 Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Bruce Lilly Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Frank Ellermann Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Laird Breyer Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Bruce Lilly Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Laird Breyer MTS transparency and anonymity (was Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt), Keith Moore Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann <= Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Arnt Gulbrandsen Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Arnt Gulbrandsen Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Laird Breyer