From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Sep 01 2000 - 04:44:27 CDT
In <ylitshuonu.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>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.
It's more or a replacement for X-Trace than for NNTP-Posting-Host. But
then X-Trace usually duplicates NNTP-Posting-Host, which is wasteful.
I expect people will tend to include NNTP-Posting-Host as well for some
time after the new header appears. The real question is whether or not the
format I have proposed for Injector-Info lends itself to scanning for
interesting things by filters. If so, then filters will soon be scanning
for it, and NNTP-Posting-Host (which was never documented) will fade away.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5