Geez, guys. C'mon, let's get on with something else.
This dog won't hunt anymore. Let's move on. O.K. ?
At 07:18 PM 10/26/00 -0400, you wrote:
>We are still discussing it because you're being inexplicably disingenous,
>doing a disservice to this list and to people who have trusted you to give
>bring an honest eye to such discussions. You are stating that "sender:" and
>"x-sender:" are essentially interchangeable because the RFC writers didn't
>think enough about the "sender:" and other standard headers. You are
>blatantly avoiding the question of the original poster, Anthony Abby, who
>asked if an RFC-compliant server could treat use the x-sender: as the from:,
>a question which I answered straightforwardly, without prejudice,
>and--excepting your essntially off-topic semantic argument that "trust is in
>the eye of the prospective truster," etc.--correctly. I think you owe the
>list an apology for continuing to waste time on a rant. And no, I will not
>be the first to discontinue the argument, because your abrasive
>manner--complained about many times in the past, I note--demands that I
>object.
>
>In case you haven't picked this up before: I NEVER SAID ONE SHOULD ENTRUST
>USER AUTHORIZATION TO THE STANDARD HEADER FIELDS. It's time you drop your
>accusation, and reverse your assumption, that I implied anything in this
>regard. A quick scan of this thread shows that you veered off the topic
>rather bizarrely. I started a new thread, "Standard SMTP headers as user
>authorization," so that people can discuss how right you are on the OTHER
>matter.
>
>Sandy
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Len Conrad
> > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 4:52 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] HEADER QUESTION
> >
> >
> >
> > >It's about the RFCs, which, as you concur, suggest that the standard
> > >headers were designed to be considered trustworthy
> >
> > Screw the RFC's saying headers are "trustworthy", all from/to headers
> > are forgeable extremely easily.
> >
> > Why are we even discussing this blatant, unchallengeabble, banally
> > verifiable point?
> >
> > Listen, all you Trust-the-Headers people, you go run "relay for local
> > user/domains" and let us know how your trust pays you back within in
> > a few weeks, if not sooner.
> >
> > Len
> >
> > Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
> > to be removed from this list.
> >
> > An Archive of this list is available at:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
>
>Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
>to be removed from this list.
>
>An Archive of this list is available at:
>http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA Internet Concepts, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55 (972) 788-2364 Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
----
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
