On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:11:26 -0800, Doug Otis wrote: > > This appeal boils down to "someone might misuse it so don't > > standardize it." Is there any standard to which someone couldn't > > have made a similar objection? > > The appeal is in regard to offering recipients potentially misleading > information where its source is intentionally omitted thus preventing > reputation evaluation by the MUA as required by section 4.1. This assertion, which is the premise behind much of the logic within the appeal and its varied antecedents, is manifestly false. The draft not only does NOT establish that requirement, it goes to some length to suggest doing so is a bad idea. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf