Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I've finally got time again to take part in this discussion, so here we
go, top-to-bottom. Sorry for the mail flood this implies.
Thanks!
Tony Hansen wrote:
There should be an indication somewhere that this header is on the
standards track.
It's my understanding that a standards track proposal is only
appropriate for protocols whose implementation/interpretation will span
administrative boundaries. Since that's clearly not true for something
that is added by a receiver/verifier for consumption by a message
recipient, the informational track seemed more appropriate. LMTP was
cited to me as an example.
LMTP definitely stays within a single administrative domain; it deals
with the communication pieces within a MTA system. However, A-R does not.
My MTA is in one administrative domain: my ISP's. My MUA is in another:
mine. They need standards to communicate information properly.
IMAP and POP extend across the same set of administrative domains; they
need standards to communicate properly.
A-R needs to be on the standards track.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html