Hi again!
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
Thus I'd vote for SRS (or similar) to be skipped on SES senders.
Me too. Ideally, forwarders should be able to recognized SES and skip
SRS. Realistically, that is not always going to happen. I plan to
recognize and skip SRS for SES, but I'm not sure at the moment what
the identifier is because I haven't been keeping up. I know it is
no longer 'SES'. I think it is 'S='.
That's sad. They should agree upon one prefix and keep it. And keep a
version number too perhaps, for extensions. I liked the SES0=... of
earlier drafts.
The SRS implementation that's pending here in this company doesn't
recognize any exceptions yet (except that it recognizes SRS0 and SRS1 to
do the SRS1 algorithm). But I think if SES stabilizes, it'd be easy to
put an exception for that in, too.
I'm glad that you're agreeing in principle, thanks.
Kind regards,
Hannah.