Dave CROCKER wrote:
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
I too was confused by the use of the word "opaque".
I think it is always reasonabel to ask about the use of a word one does not
understand.
As John noted, it's a term that's common in computer science, referring to
data
that is not interpretable to readers who lack special knowledge of the data.
Perhaps there should be a qualifier that says something like "opaque, like a
Web
cookie".
It may be opaque to end users, but it is not opaque to the middle-ware
software, verifiers and possible mail presentation software. There
is protocol consistency here that can be checked by the software with
the 2822 information provided.
Please don't use "cookies" in describe this. Cookies does not have a
positive reputations for privacy and security considerations. You can
get lost with the semantics if its permanent vs session only cookie.
I just fine irony in trying to introduce technology to suppose to ease
concerns regarding email abuse, would now have ideas that conflicts
with that concept. I recommend to avoid this and in the words of
President Obama, "Don't listen to Limbaugh."
--
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