Hi Rolf,
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld <
R(_dot_)E(_dot_)Sonneveld(_at_)sonnection(_dot_)nl> wrote:
At the time SenderID was proposed, back in 2004 or something, the act of
propagating header information into the transport stream was seen by many
as a layering violation. The proposal of Murray and Johns suggested kludge
alternative do the reverse: propagating envelope information to the header.
In my view this is, again, a layering violation. The downside of crossing
layer borders is that transport and header information are (too) tightly
coupled, which makes that the flexibility of the original mail design
(RFC821/RFC822) is lost.
There's obviously some truth to this, but there's also truth to the fact
that humans, the ones this community seeks to serve, routinely cross layers
in both directions whether or not we do so in protocols. End user
education has never been a viable answer to protocol limitations as far as
I'm aware, much as we all wish it were so.
I'm willing to hold my nose -- a little -- at a reach across a layer
boundary if there's potentially a large win. Whether this proposal or some
variant of it qualifies is why I brought the question to this group.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html