From: Reinaldo de Carvalho (reinaldocgmail.com)
Date: Thu Oct 02 2008 - 12:29:57 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Victor Duchovni
<Victor.Duchovnimorganstanley.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 01:27:46PM -0300, Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote:
>
>> "Delivered to" could be mentioned by the RFC, as well as
>
> No reason to, it has no end-to-end semantics. The only valid consumer
> of "Delivered-To" is the system that added it. The header could be:
>
> X-Loop-COM-EXAMPLE: <date> <hmac-sha1(secret, date+address)>
>
> and would work just as well (or perhaps better) for loop detection.
>
> The point is that RFCs don't need to cover purely local issues.
>
> --
> Viktor.
>

"Don't need" but "could be". The standards *could be suggest*
something about loop detection.

--
Reinaldo de Carvalho
http://korreio.sf.net
http://python-cyrus.sf.net

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]