Re: "Header Reordering", yet again

At 08:05 PM 5/27/2005 -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> On Fri May 27 2005 18:49, David MacQuigg wrote:
>
> > We don't expect every sender to be
> > compliant, just the ones that want to be trusted as Public Mail
> > Servers.  This may be a small number at first.  Then others will discover
> > the benefits of becoming compliant - bypass the spam filtering.
>
> Past experience with SPF indicates that spammers -- who have financial
> incentive -- will be early adopters, and legitimate mailers who don't
> conform to your preconceived notions will be harmed.  The spammers
> will claim that because they comply with your scheme, they aren't
> really spammers at all.  The scheme -- like SPF -- would be doubly
> harmful.
We seem to be losing context again.  The question is whether we can specify 
that Trusted Forwarders MUST NOT reorder trace headers, using the same 
language as the words from RFC-2822 that you snipped.  What does it matter 
if spammers conform to this requirement?  How will legitimate mailers be 
hurt?  If they send through a forwarder that is not trusted, they have to 
go through the same spam filter that they have always gone through.  Using 
a Trusted Forwarder is a plus.  Not using one is not a minus.
You seem to have a "preconceived notion" that all change is wrong.  Let's 
avoid the personal attacks and focus on facts.  You could have said "don't 
conform to your expectations", and been less inflammatory.
--
Dave
************************************************************     *
* David MacQuigg, PhD     email: david_macquigg at yahoo.com     *  *
* IC Design Engineer            phone:  USA 520-721-4583      *  *  *
* Analog Design Methodologies                                 *  *  *
*                                 9320 East Mikelyn Lane       * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C.            Tucson, Arizona 85710          *
************************************************************     *