Jim, I would like to disagree: > On 1 Aug 2017, at 00:02, Jim Fenton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Section 5.3, I don't think it's a good idea to define and require new > message header fields for this. This means that some of the > general-purpose libraries for sending email messages can't be used.
Do you mean that a general purpose library is unable to add arbitrary header fields? This doesn't seem to qualify as "general purpose". > A better approach IMO would be to suggest the use of separate email > addresses (e.g., [email protected] or [email protected] for > a service provider) in order to distinguish reports from other traffic. This is already possible. Best Regards, Alexey _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
