Re: Use of Sender in authentication considered unacceptable (was Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt)

At 14:44 25-02-2005, Keith Moore wrote:
>If you want a viable authentication proposal, you need to define a new
>field which will have a well-established meaning, not try to borrow some
>existing field which has either a different meaning (From) or some
>existing field which has no consistent use in practice (Sender).

I agree that we don't see a consistent use of the Sender field in 
practice.  If the agent responsible for the transmission of the message 
makes proper use of the Sender field, I don't see why we should redefine a 
new field when there is already a field which was set out for that purpose.

Regards,
-sm