Re: Last Call: SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation to Proposed Standard

[email protected]
> > Negotiation can mean that A and B receive different messages, both stating
> > (in to/cc) that the other received the one they didn't. Sounds very fishy
> > to my ears.
> 
> This is nothing new; situations arise routinely where the header recipient
> lists don't tell the full story about who did or did not get a message

Agreed. It's nothing new -- just more of a bad thing.

I suppose it's okay, though. If to/cc never were truly reliable, making
them even less reliable is no big deal. Even if it's the first time a
Proposed Standard does it.

> or a
> particular version of a message.

Hm? I know that some mailing lists do rather a lot of header field
rewriting and/or append a new signature.  Are there other examples?

> > The thing sounds as if it's 100% incompatible with S/MIME and other
> > signature mechansisms. Shouldn't that be mentioned in the draft's security
> > considerations section?
...
> As for mentioning any of this in the security considerations section, I
> have no problem with that.

Good. That's what I want.

--Arnt