From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 05:17:36 CST
In <Pine.LNX.4.10.10202061304200.1524-100000@spock.peak.org> John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes:
>Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk):
>> Be warned, however, that some injecting agents which are unable
>> to detect that the address belongs to the poster may choose to
>> insert a Sender header (6.2) or some entry in an Injector-Info
>> header (6.19) which discloses some valid address for the poster.
>> With that wording, no headers are modified.
>With that wording, yes, dear, headers are modified. It inserts a Sender
>header, which has the clear meaning that the poster is not the "entity"
>identified in the From header, even though it has no knowledge to that
>effect. Either that, or the injector is trying to redefine the meanings of
>the headers as I've already pointed out. Either way, the headers are being
>modified.
Oh dear! You do not seem to see the difference between the words "insert"
and "modify".
>> But the injector is not allowed to change an existing Sender header,
>Where does it say that?
>> but SHOULD NOT alter, delete or reorder any
>> headers already present in the article,
>I'm still looking for the part where an injector is not allowed to change
>an existing Sender header. Is it this wimpy note that you think prohibits
>it:
It is in the words you have just quoted above.
Now if you, or somebody else, wants to propose promoting that SHOULD NOT to
a MUST NOT, then we can discuss it.
>I know why -- because you have a private copy of the draft that you have
>modified in whatever way makes you happy, and you are debating what THAT
>copy says instead of what the publicly available copy says. I'm sorry, but
>when the draft ACTUALLY says what you claim it says, THEN I will argue
>with you about what you claim it says*, and until then, I'm using the
>public copy that is supposed to be the basis for public discussion.
>If you don't like that, I suggest you change the public copy so we can all
>be discussing the same document -- otherwise YOU are the odd man out.
All signficant differences between my private draft and the latest
published one have been posted to this list, usually after discussion of
each particular issue, and reflect what appears to be desired by the rough
consensus revealed in that discussion.
If you are now saying that I should reissue the complete draft every time
I alter a single paragraph, then I suppose that could be done, but I don't
suppose the IETF would welcome two drafts being published every week.
>And I'm getting tired of getting handed the drafts after they are sent to
>the IETF as the work product of this group instead of before they have
>been seen or discussed even once by this group's members. Several times
>you've told us unilaterally that you've sent the "new draft" off to the
>IETF and we'll get to see what it says in a few days when it makes it to
>the archive. I think WE ought to be seeing it before it becomes the
>group's submission to the IETF, not after.
Any draft sent to the IETF is no more than a snapshot of our present
status. It will contain the cummulative changes discussed on this list
since the previous draft. Some of these changes may still be the subject
of ongoing discussion, and likely to change again in a subsequent draft.
But there are indeed quite a handful of small changes accumulated by now,
so maybe I shall put up an intermediate snapshot on the Landfield site
within the next day or so.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk 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