trivial amount of extra work to check another hop or two and look at
AR's added farther away.
Wait a second! More than one mailbox in the case you discuss means more
than one border gateway with differing sets of policies and is
inapplicable to what we're talking about here.
Huh? Where does it say that people with more than one mailbox aren't
allowed to use A-R ? The point I'm making here isn't about different
policies, it's that you can only believe an A-R header if the path it took
to get to you is good. We don't all get our mail via a VPN direct to
Cisco global HQ, you know, and the more unlike that a mail system is, the
more likely it is that A-R will be useful.
Well, it's not clear we are offering anybody any favors with this header
to begin with. The game is likely lost by the time the message gets to
the user's desktop.
Perhaps, but in that case A-R is totally useless, so why waste your time
on it?
I have described an actual not-contrived use case for multiple A-R
headers, based on filtering that I'm doing right now. I wish you and Mike
would stop saying that I'm lying.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html