RFC 822 and RFC 2822 say:
If the originator of the message can be indicated by a single
mailbox and the author and transmitter are identical, the
"Sender:" field SHOULD NOT be used. Otherwise, both fields SHOULD
appear.
And the above is a two decade plus practice, you nor Pete is not
going to change this.
Not only did my statement *not* change the above, I have no desire to
change it. I wrote those words almost 7 years ago (as per the
consensus of the DRUMS working group), and I still believe they
reflect the consensus of the community.
Hmmm, Pete, the exact statement above has not changed since 1982 (RFC
822). Seems like DRUMS just confirmed what already preexisted in RFC
822 and in common practice by 2001 for nearly 20 years and passed on to
RFC 2822.
IMO, there is simply no practical reason for changing this to a MUST
which I believe Frank is proposing (put it up for a vote).
Unless you are saying a SHOULD is really a MUST because no one will have
a good reason to not honor a SHOULD, and therefore they would be
considered "bad" implementations because they are miss reading the
specifications by not following a SHOULD even if their reasons are not
acceptable by their peers, then I think I will stick with the technical
layman excuse that a SHOULD still falls within the whelms of a
"optional" concept albeit less optional than a MAY, and I wouldn't be
surprise when software exist that do not support SHOULD recommendations
for whatever reason that may be.
Thanks for your comments.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html