[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.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
