On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:57:10 +0100, MH Michael Hammer (5304) <[email protected]> wrote:
> If the consensus is that it is a problem but not really a 4871 problem > then do we just walk away from it and leave it at that - "not our > problem"? Should we perhaps look for the place where the 5322 people > roost (I hear that working group shut down as part of IETF reorg) and at > least say... "hey, this came up in the context of 4871 and we believe > there may be some wider implications and it may be worth considering > whether 5322 should be considered in light of this". The 5322 people roost on [email protected]. But since it is already a REQUIREMENT of 5322 that From, Subject et al should appear no more than once, just what do you suppose they could do beyond what they have already done? -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: [email protected] snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
