I'm done.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Don Brown
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 8:54 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] HEADER QUESTION
>
>
> 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/
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/
