Archive of:
 Imail Forum
Ipswitch list for Imail
home
24 hour view
quick stats
weekly updates
all tallylists
corporate solutions
archive your favorite
help / feedback
About Imail :
product's home
product's list home
|
|
Archived TallyList / Imail Forum:
Subject: RE: HEADER QUESTION
 Sanford Whiteman (51p/+1r) Posted: Thursday 26 Oct 2000
This post: 25 views, +0 rating
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: IMail_Forum-owner@list.ipswitch.com > [mailto:IMail_Forum-owner@list.ipswitch.com]On Behalf Of Len Conrad > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 4:52 PM > To: IMail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com > 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 > > > > > >
Similar Subject Line Posts (+/- two weeks of this post)
| Send a reply to the Imail Forum list! |
 |
NOTE: Many lists will reject your post unless you have already registered with them. Also - don't forget the right account to send from (for those with multiple emails!) |
|
