From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Sep 07 2000 - 06:32:29 CDT
In <20000906082758.C20017@demon.net> "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net> writes:
>I read "serial" as being data recorded by the news server to do with the
>*posting* (e.g. box and process ID within a cluster), and not to do with
>the *identity* (IP address or hostname plus some link to who was using that
>address at that moment). In other words, there's more data than you've
>allowed for.
"serial" was meant to be stuff that was not really meaningful except to
the ISP (i.e. you would need his logs to understand it fully, but if the
logs can be consulted, then they should lead you straight to the
perpetrator).
>> Agreed that my "serial" parameter has a very loose syntax. I did toy with
>> the idea of having a "server" parameter. The "sender" parameter was
>> supposed to identify the user, but maybe a "user" parameter is also
>> needed.
>"posting-host" and "posting-account" ?
Yes, I like it. So that would give us:
posting-host = FQDN/IP/both
posting-date = date-time
posting-account = whatever ISP uses to identify account, but always the
same thing for a given account (i.e. no aliases or funny
screen-names such as might appear in From header)
server = FQDN/IP/both (for ISPs with large server farms, unless it is the
same as the path-identity)
serial = pointer to ISP's log entry
sender = mailbox (an alternative to posting-account for small sites which
can identify the sender by his login-name)
protocol = NNTP/whatever (do we want this? - the Received header seems to
have it)
complaints-to = mailbox (unless we make it a separate header)
-- 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