On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:30:49 +0100 Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's no technical reason, an X-Confirm-Delivery-Of or similar > should do fine. But I still like the idea of using the Message-ID; if > we adopt to another standardized technique later, there'll be no > X-header cruft left over. I also like the general idea of using the > Message-ID in delivery notifications not only for uniqueness, but also > to deliver some information. In my opinion a possible conflict is > very unlikely. At least one of the proposed consent token protocols uses Message IDs which: a) contain an embedded consent token. b) are valid and deliverable email addresses (via plus addressing) for the address to which the consent token applies (which is how it is recognisable as applicable to that address in subsequent transmissions). Prepending tokens on Message IDs, which is really overloading the Message ID data, would interfere with such uses. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. [EMAIL PROTECTED] He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
