On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Victor Duchovni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
