"Reinaldo de Carvalho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Victor Duchovni > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 01:27:46PM -0300, Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote: >> >>> "Delivered to" could be mentioned by the RFC, as well as >> >> No reason to, it has no end-to-end semantics. The only valid consumer >> of "Delivered-To" is the system that added it. The header could be: >> >> X-Loop-COM-EXAMPLE: <date> <hmac-sha1(secret, date+address)> >> >> and would work just as well (or perhaps better) for loop detection. >> >> The point is that RFCs don't need to cover purely local issues. >> >> -- >> Viktor. >> > > "Don't need" but "could be". The standards *could be suggest* > something about loop detection.
I wonder how useful "could be" (aka MAY) clauses are - if they end up being implementation-specific, not widely deployed, whatever else that is not universal, they seem of little use to me. -- Matthias Andree
