In <859B14CB-04BE-11D9-ACBD-000A95B3BA44(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> Andrew Newton
<andy(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> writes:
While perhaps interesting, discussion of non-intersecting subcultures
is not relevant to this working group.
I disagree. While Anne may require two hand count the lawyers with a
similar combination of being a geek, being a lawyer, and understanding
email, I need only one finger.
What Anne is explaining is basically what we need to do to help
deployment, which is quite relevant to this working group. She is
explaing why people who want to stop phishing prefer the PRA over the
2821.MAILFROM even though the PRA protects the 2822.Resent-Sender:
header instead of the 2822.From: header in the critical case of actual
phishing.
On Sep 12, 2004, at 1:48 AM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
Oh sure, it's very clever to get several major bulk email senders to
agree to a standard - but at the end of the day it doesn't matter
This is very inappropriate. I don't think you would appreciate other
participants of this group denouncing your voice.
I don't think Anne was was denouncing anyone's voice. She was trying
to explain what we need to take into account when we design and try to
get deployed a standard than needs buy-in non email-geeks.
I think her last paragraph is very important:
: So the trick is to get the lawyers and the suits to realize that your
: concerns aren't just something they have to endure - they are
: something they have to satisfy.
A similar concept needs to be considered by us: We need to realize
that lawyer/suit concerns aren't just something we have to endure -
they are something we have to satisfy.
In this sense, neither protecting almost invisible things like the
Return-Path: nor the Resent-From: header really satisify their
concerns.
-wayne