--On 1 March 2010 22:28:04 +0800 Dave CROCKER <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On 2/27/2010 10:54 PM, John Levine wrote:
Doesn't that conflict with the practice of removing A-Rs?
You only need to remove A-Rs that claim to be from you.
That's a claim worth challenging.
It's two claims, actually:
1. You need to remove A-R's that claim to be from you.
2. You don't need to remove A-R's that don't claim to be from you.
Unless the second claim is "You don't need to do anything else with A-R's
that claim to be from you" I doubt that's the case, though.
Anyway, which claim would you challenge? Oh, maybe the claim referred to in
the claim!
d/
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html