From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Jan 11 2001 - 07:59:05 CST
In <ylitnoc92x.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
>> NOTE: The use of ".invalid" is to provide an aid to mail systems so that
>> addresses deliberately intended to be malformed can be identified and
>> delivery aborted. User agents MUST identify such addresses and require
>> the user to alter the address when attempting a personal email reply.
>> Injecting agents that have authentication information MAY choose to
>> enforce the From-content based on the poster's authenticated identity.
>I don't think putting conformance requirements in a note is a good idea,
>and furthermore this is an interface issue. s/MUST/Ought/. No
>interoperability problem is created by not treading .invalid specially.
Noted. Other opinions?
>> Often this field will be the only entry in the region (known as the
>> pre-injection region) after the '%', although there may be entries
>> corresponding to machines traversed between the posting agent and the
>> injecting agent proper. In particular, injecting agents that receive
>> articles from many sources MAY include the identity of the source
>> machine connecting to do the injection, (or other information to
>> establish the circumstances of the injection) and SHOULD do so if no
>> Injector-Info header (6.19) has been added.
>I think we should strike the clause after the "and", including the SHOULD.
>If the intention is to require trace information at the SHOULD level, that
>should be handled in 6.19 with the Injector-Info header. I don't think
>it's a good idea to try to standardize and require more than one place to
>put this information, particularly when neither of them are existing
>practice.
There is currently no wording to say that the Injector-Info header SHOULD
be present (though we might add such wording). Certainly the matter
SHOULD be covered one way or the other (which is what it says). I was a
little doubtful about the last part of that sentence when I wrote it, but
did not want to provoke Brad unnecessarily :-( .
I shoould like to hear some further opinions.
>> Any such inclusion SHOULD NOT conflict with any genuine site
>> identifier.
>This seems like a very difficult requirement to fulfill if the above
>recommendation is followed; how is the injecting agent supposed to know
>whether there's also a news server running on the same host that uses that
>as its Path entry?
We discussed this at the time, and that is why it is only a SHOULD.
Essentially, it says that sysadmins SHOULD do the best they can (which may
not be much) but cerainly SHOULD fix the problem if it is spotted and
pointed out to them. Technically, anything more than that is impossible to
implement anyway.
-- 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: +44 161 436 6131 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