From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Sep 07 2000 - 07:27:32 CDT
In <200009062314.TAA07526@darkstar.prodigy.com> davidsen@prodigy.com (Bill Davidsen) writes:
> On this one I would bless using a filed called NNTP-Posting-Host,
>followed by FQDN or IP. I suspect that making up a new name, or adding
>things which might confuse SPAM filters which do a simple string match,
>would be a negative impact. I'd love to just require IP, since some
>hosts don't use FQDN, but "the horse is out of the barn" as my
>grandmother used to say.
Yes, that's just what my proposal does (except I dropped the "NNTP_",
because it can apply to any protocol).
> And given the likely near future, we should formally bless IPv6 IP
>addresses as well, because they're coming sooner than the next draft.
And yes, IPv6 is in my draft.
> I really would like to get rid of the whole header, but it would be a
>decade before people started filtering on a new one. Let's keep it just
>the way it is, or not have it at all and use one of the field of
>whatever the injector info is called today.
I think people will continue to include a separate NNTP-Posting-Host for
quite a while yet. It will be redundant, but then it already is on account
of the same information currently appearing in X-Trace.
-- 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