mouss writes:

Sam Varshavchik wrote:
[snip]

That's unrealistic. the user-part in MAIL FROM has a length limitation which goes against secure signatures. the other question is why would this be needed (I mean, is it really worth the trouble?)...

isn't
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]   (where "blahblah" is whatever you want)
enough? (replace '+' with whatever "extension" character you use)

That was my first thought as well. Maybe if I waste half a day trying to decipher that document, I'll see some brilliance in that proposal, but, so far, I just don't get it.


the "primary" scheme proposed in the draft is
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
where "KDDDSSSSS" is the "tag-value".

Cool. All that now needs to be determined is, if I start using these return addresses, why anyone else should care. What difference does it make, to someone else?



Attachment: pgppciVzQB27V.pgp
Description: PGP signature

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft 
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
courier-users mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users

Reply via email to