Dave CROCKER wrote: > > Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >> I too was confused by the use of the word "opaque". > > I think it is always reasonabel to ask about the use of a word one does not > understand. > > As John noted, it's a term that's common in computer science, referring to > data > that is not interpretable to readers who lack special knowledge of the data. > Perhaps there should be a qualifier that says something like "opaque, like a > Web > cookie".
It may be opaque to end users, but it is not opaque to the middle-ware software, verifiers and possible mail presentation software. There is protocol consistency here that can be checked by the software with the 2822 information provided. Please don't use "cookies" in describe this. Cookies does not have a positive reputations for privacy and security considerations. You can get lost with the semantics if its permanent vs session only cookie. I just fine irony in trying to introduce technology to suppose to ease concerns regarding email abuse, would now have ideas that conflicts with that concept. I recommend to avoid this and in the words of President Obama, "Don't listen to Limbaugh." -- Sincerely Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
