The one major objection I had to what was said in the LMAP document is
all the vague references to "changing semantics". I don't see how any
of the LMAP proposals seriously change any semantics, and this phrase
seems to have been latched onto and blown out of proportion by various
people. (Mostly people I don't recognize being involved discussions
on SPAM-L, NANAE, ASRG, SPF-discuss, etc.)
There are those who hold that MAIL FROM data is sender identification
(claiming support from RFCs 2821, 821, 788).
There seems to be a school of thought that holds that *use* of
MAIL FROM data for anything other than (more than) return-path is a change
of semantics. Some adherents hold that the RFCs are just plain wrong.
There's a pragmatic position - "I can, and am going to, use MAIL FROM data
as a basis for policy enforcement. So live with it."
If you can characterise other camps that I've missed, I'd be interested to
hear.
--
He who is determined not to be satisfied with anything short of perfection will
never do any-thing to please himself or others.
William Hazlitt (1778-1830)