On Wednesday 16 January 2008 16:49, Arvel Hathcock wrote:
Given that it would solve the problem described in 1525 and also bring
us closer to a consensus position perhaps this thread should discuss
what is lost through utilization of the Sender header in at least some
cases.
If it's allowed, then it's trivial to construct messages for which the
identity used in SSP is likely not the one displayed to the end user. Then
I'd really have to ask myself what we are trying to accomplish.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html