Now I'm doubly confused. Are we interpreting this as "if the MSA knows
the message is messed up, reject it?"
That's the effect of what it says.
I can't see how to interpret an instruction about "a return path to the
submitting user" that way, but as I said, in 13 years it's been harmless,
so whatever.
No, what happens is someone sends to foo or foo@bar because that worked in
one context; this gets blindly expanded to [email protected] or
[email protected] in another context and gets sent to the wrong user.
Oh, OK.
Or maybe this is in fact OK with you since you appear to be arguing that
implementation advice should always reflect what implementations actually do
instead or what they should be doing.
Given that our goal is to turn a draft into a full standard, I think there
is merit to documenting the actual practice rather than advice that's been
consistently rejected by practitioners for over a decade. It may not be
BCP, but it's CP.
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
