From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Sep 05 2000 - 04:48:42 CDT
In <200009041419.QAA11923@kairos.algonet.se> sommar@algonet.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>What did we say about reinjection? If I run Hamster at home and I have
>Hamster to insert Injector-Info, surely my ISP must have the right
>to through that away?
Section 8 of our draft discourages reinjection, but realises that it is
going to happen sometimes anyway (especially in bizarre gateways). Yes,
the intention with Injector-Info is that the ISP MUST throw it away if it
is already present on arrival (though there is a suggestion to copy it to
X-Injector-Info first). It might be useful to say in a NOTE that any
NNTP-* header and Complaints-To header present on arrival should also be
thrown away. I have made a note to do that.
>> I think this is also the reason why the Complaints-To should be part of
>> the same header.
>That's a good argument.
>But we could have both Complaints-To as a separte header, and as part of
>Injector-Info.
That would be redundant. But it might be useful to establish a convention
that complaints-to should be the first parameter of Injector-Info, to give
it some prominence.
>Mind you, that if we only have Injector-Info, the spammer can still
>include a Complaints-To to confused.
Sure. Spammers will always try what they can get away with. Many of them
already hopefully include an NNTP-Posting-Host :-( .
-- 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