--On 1 March 2010 22:28:04 +0800 Dave CROCKER <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> > > On 2/27/2010 10:54 PM, John Levine wrote: >>> Doesn't that conflict with the practice of removing A-Rs? >> >> You only need to remove A-Rs that claim to be from you. > > > That's a claim worth challenging. It's two claims, actually: 1. You need to remove A-R's that claim to be from you. 2. You don't need to remove A-R's that don't claim to be from you. Unless the second claim is "You don't need to do anything else with A-R's that claim to be from you" I doubt that's the case, though. Anyway, which claim would you challenge? Oh, maybe the claim referred to in the claim! > > d/ -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html