On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > --- Keith Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sender is so widely misused in practice that you really need to define a > > new field for this, or better yet, just define a new one that has > > cleaner semantics. > > So let me get this right. Because the semantics of From:, Sender:, > Resent-From:, Reply-To: 2821.MailFrom, List-ID: overlap, are ill-defined, and > often ill-implemented, your solution is to introduce yet another field that > will magically clear the whole mess up even though all previous attempts in > this direction seem to have failed?
Isn't the i= tag the new identity that Keith is asking for? Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ BISCAY: WEST 5 OR 6 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. SHOWERS AT FIRST. MODERATE OR GOOD. _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
