On Jan 28, 2008 1:30 PM, Hector Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > But beyond that, I have to say I'm a bit confounded by the concern for > > invalid messages shown here. There are a gazillion ways for messages > > to be invalid and attempting to account for them all in our > > specifications is a practical impossibility. And yet many members > > of this group seem to have no problem blithely ignoring various > > legitimate protocol features. I find this dichotomy to be more > > than a little perflexing. > > +1. >
+1,000,000 I am VERY sorry if I had anything to do with this thread going as long as it did. My reply to the first message was just to clear up my confusion. Regards, Damon _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
