From: Maurizio Codogno (mau@beatles.cselt.it)
Date: Wed Sep 22 1999 - 10:55:18 CDT
" Not posted to the list, apparently.
yup. I noticed this, but I thought that if I did not write too many
stupid things, you would have answered anyway :-)
" > " I had no intention to change the syntax, but rather to be more insistent
" > " that it had to have some resemblance to the true sender/originator of the
" > " article (i.e. to outlaw "Approved: foo").
" I think what I am aiming at is for all necessary plain text for a human to
" be able to establish that approval came from some person that he believes
" was authorised to give it should be in the Approved header.
"
" If you then want to establish that the Approved header was created in a
" proper manner, you include it in whatever digital signing of headers
" scheme that is agreed upon. Thus people who do not have the time of
" facilities to check the digital signature can at least read it and see
" what is alleged to be the full story.
If we think that authentication will be made through header signing,
then I have no objection.