william(at)elan.net wrote: [...] > http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg05774.html Yes, that was a very good article. > incompatible with RFC2822 I'm still a bit lost how this could actually _break_ something. For obvious reasons the author can't say "updates 2822", how should he fix it ? As you said the 822 issue is mentioned in the senderid-pra draft. Do you want more "security considerations", something along the line of "PRA-participants agree to break an explicit MUST in 2822" ? > I disagree that it should be ignored quite so easily because > RFC822 is still listed as Internet Standard where as RFC2822 > is just Proposed Standard. Touché. OTOH the author isn't responsible for this "detail" - in the spirit of TINW (for an IETF-we) it's "our" fault. Bye. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf