Tony Hansen wrote:
Since John formulated this summary and suggestion almost a week ago,
there has been no comment. Nix, nada, zilch.
Hu ? The question of return routes was discussed elsewhere, and IIRC
some folks supported to kill them. For a value of "some" not smaller
They muddy the water because they can't work as expected when they're
generally ignored and/or not generated. Nobody supported to revive
return routes (in a minimalistic fashion at the border or otherwise),
it won't work. It's just syntactical junk that has to be accepted
and ignored when it comes from 821-SMTPs, if such systems still exist.
John proposed to put the cruft into F.2 also in another message, and
that got several reactions, or do I start to dream about 2821bis ?
P.S. to Arnt: ACK, we can't go to the IESG with "foo.com" addresses,
they'd kill us with a reason, no matter who originally wrote the text.