On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:57:10 +0100, MH Michael Hammer (5304)
<MHammer(_at_)ag(_dot_)com> wrote:
If the consensus is that it is a problem but not really a 4871 problem
then do we just walk away from it and leave it at that - "not our
problem"? Should we perhaps look for the place where the 5322 people
roost (I hear that working group shut down as part of IETF reorg) and at
least say... "hey, this came up in the context of 4871 and we believe
there may be some wider implications and it may be worth considering
whether 5322 should be considered in light of this".
The 5322 people roost on ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org(_dot_)
But since it is already a REQUIREMENT of 5322 that From, Subject et al
should appear no more than once, just what do you suppose they could do
beyond what they have already done?
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html