----- Original Message -----
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
To: "'Hector Santos'" <hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com>; "IETF-MXCOMP"
<ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Again, this is not to say an implementation can not use the 2822
information, but it is at another level, a level that I
don't think is consistent with what we are trying to do.
I have been trying to find the substance of your argument but so
far I have not. Basically all you seem to be saying is that you
have written a spam filtering system, you believe it to work,
therefore any proposal that does not look like yours is wrong.
Sorry, you feel that way. But of course, its not true.
Nonetheless, I believe the effort should focus first on RFC 2821 as I
think that is where the best benefit will be technical achieved based on a
known fixed set of information and protocol. Lumping RFC 2822 into the mix
will give you what's going on now - debates with no direction primarily
based on an unverifiable and no guarantee to be true dataset.
Thanks for your comment.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com