Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour

["Jon Kyme" <jrk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"wayne"  <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> 
> I am suggesting that we start a split track now.  The RFC2821 stuff
> has been held back far too long.  The RFC2822 algorithm (S/MIME, DK,
> C-ID, something else) needs to be selected and then tested.  We
> shouldn't abandon either one.
> 

Well then, my apologies, I thought that when you previously wrote:
>Until such time that there is at least a proof-of-concept code 
>that we can all play with and collect real data on real email feeds,
>I will strongly object to including the RFC2822 identities as 
>something we should work on.
you were arguing that RFC2822 should be out of scope. The "split track"
idea seems to be a variation on the original "strongly object" position.