From: Jonathan Grobe (grobe@netins.net)
Date: Thu Aug 31 2000 - 23:51:56 CDT
So the obvious alternative is for this group to define several headers
instead, such as:
NNTP-Posting-Host
NNTP-Posting-Date
Complaints-To
Trace
Anyone prefer this approach?
Jonathan Grobe Jonathan Grobe Books. Used & out-of-print books:
Search or browse subject catalogs: <http://showcase.netins.net/web/grobe>
For millions of used/out-of-print books try <http://www.abebooks.com>
<http://www.bibliofind.com> <http://www.bookavenue.com>
On 31 Aug 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> 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.