From: Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)
Date: Thu Aug 31 2000 - 16:05:41 CDT
Shmuel (Seymour J ) Metz <Shmuel@acm.org> writes:
> Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> said:
>> We last discussed this many many months ago. I hope I have captured the
>> spirit of what we discussed then. I have tried to follow the existing
>> semantics of NNTP-Posting-Host, NNTP-Posting-Date and X-Trace, insofar
>> as these could be determined :-( .
> Looks good.
NNTP-Posting-Host is widely used in practice in spam filtering. I'm still
rather leery of a change that makes this huge of a change in existing
practice. NNTP-Posting-Host is more widely used than a lot of the headers
that are in RFC 1036.
I don't have any real disagreements with the proposed new header on its
own merits, but that part of things makes me nervous.
-- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>