GF> Reply-To: (RFC 822/2822) could serve the purpose
GF> of being able to send on behalf of another entity.
That would change the 25+ year semantics of Reply-to.
Another good reason to not match headers to envelopes.
If we're going to play Lawyer with the letter of the RFCs just to continue
this filibuster, then I'll stick with the letter of the RFCs. As I thought I
explained umpteen times to no beneficial effect, I'm not interested in
mucking with RFC 822/2822 content.
GF> The moment I start seeing MAIL
FROM:<paypalspoofer(_at_)aol(_dot_)com> sending
GF> From: service(_at_)paypal(_dot_)com under an envelope-only
verification system, I'll
GF> start matching headers to envelopes and bouncing mail.
It is already done by legitimate subscription bulk mail senders.
Yet another good reason to not match headers to envelopes. Can we stop now?
--
PGP key (0x0AFA039E):
<http://www.pan-am.ca/consulting(_at_)pan-am(_dot_)ca(_dot_)asc>
What's a PGP Key? See <http://www.pan-am.ca/free.html>
GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. <http://vmyths.com/rant.cfm?id=401&page=4>