From: Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se)
Date: Sun Feb 24 2002 - 08:33:13 CST
John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes:
> You claimed that you weren't reading the argument, so I can understand why
> you would say that you haven't seen this. I've been calling ALL ALONG for
> an explicit MUST NOT regarding the Sender header. I even provided wording
> to that effect that could be inserted in the draft. I'm sorry you missed
> it.
Good. Problem is that you spend too much time on side issues such
as moaning about words being put in your mouth, complain on grammar,
making a lot of noise about the irrelevant fact that the injector
cannot know whether the address in "From: " relates to the person
posting or not, etc etc.
You could probably say more if you used less words. (And using English
rather than "simple english" would help too.)
Whether MUST NOT is a good idea, I leave other to judge. It strikes me
a bit funny, though, to label a behaviour as "MUST NOT" when it was
permitted by previous standards, and definitely was the existing practice
one point in time.
And one more hint for your fight with the windmills: in 6.19.1.2
the requirement for the posting-account-parameter of Injector-info is
only SHOULD for a cryptic notaition
> If you can leave the spelling flames out, that is.
In your company? Nah, don't deny me my Sunday entertainment.
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar@algonet.se