Frank Ellermann wrote:
If it's all the same for you and "high-value" signers like Yahoo!
SSP could as well try to be compatible with the RFC 2822 Sender.
Don't be surprised if ignoring Resent-* hurts it in the real world.
Focus on Sender is already shaky, SenderID fans might have other
ideas, and one SenderID fan controls big parts of the real world.
JFTR, I'm no SenderID fan, maybe many Resent-* users also aren't.
There seems to be a thread in these interminable threads that RFC2822's
very structure implies that SSP ought to use address XYZ rather than
asking the obvious question of what we want SSP to do _first_. Can
anybody describe what benefit SSP would give if it chose some other
address? Other than supposedly genuflecting to RFC2822?
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html