On Feb 1, 9:11am, Steve Atkins wrote:
}
} On Feb 1, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
}
} > Does ARF allow richer expression than ANNOTATE?
}
} Probably - it's basically a container format.
}
} More importantly, perhaps, it would be easy to roll out on existing
} installations with a trivial configuration change, rather than
} requiring functionality in the mailstore that may not be there.
Anything that's going to be added as metadata to the message header
needs to be carefully specified so that a client that understands the
format can reside behind a server that does not. E.g., depending on
where this metadata is added, one option might be to require a DKIM
signature to cover it.
Precisely because this would be rolled out on existing installations,
it's not sufficient to treat it like a Return-Path field and expect
the final delivery server to clean up any values that were improperly
inserted earlier in transit.
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg