Mark Delany wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:59:19AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote: >> You believe both and apply a receiver policy determined by yourself that >> will handle a message with an anomaly, > > I'm with John on this. I don't see any merit in constructing a system > that allows anomalies soley for the purpose of giving a receiver less > certainty and more work to do.
+1 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
