From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Mon Feb 25 2002 - 13:40:08 CST
Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se):
>Problem is that you spend too much time on side issues such
>as moaning about words being put in your mouth,
If you didn't do it in the first place, I wouldn't have to spend any time
telling you to stop.
>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.
That is the point, Erland. The Sender is not supposed to be used AT ALL if
the From header correctly identifies the sender. That's why an injector
isn't supposed to be putting one in; it cannot know that the From does not
identify the sender.
>(And using English
>rather than "simple english" would help too.)
I will use the english that I was taught here in the US. You seem to feel
free to use the english you were taught in Sweden, despite the apparent
difficulty in expressing yourself, so where do you get off trying to deny
a native speaker the use of his language?
> Whether MUST NOT is a good idea, I leave other to judge.
So what are you here arguing with me that it shouldn't be MUST NOT for?
>It strikes me
>a bit funny, though, to label a behaviour as "MUST NOT" when it was
>permitted by previous standards,
This isn't an issue of what is funny or not. It is an issue of what an
injector can and cannot know, and whether or not we allow it to continue
to redefine the headers as it wishes instead of following the standard.
You might have missed the tiny point that this is a DIFFERENT standard
than 1036, which means that things might change. Yes, that means an
injector can be required to do something new, or prevented from doing
something it used to get away with. That's part of writing a new standard.
If nothing changes, then why waste time with a new standard?
>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
I'm sure that sentence made some sense to you when you wrote it. Or maybe
not.
> In your company? Nah, don't deny me my Sunday entertainment.
So this waste of my time is for your "Sunday entertainment"?
Clive D.W. Feather (clive@demon.net):
>I'd like it to be clear that "entity" doesn't mean "a specific human
>being", because that's about the only valid point I've seen John Stanley's
>stuff produce.
So you'd like it specified that "entity" cannot be a human being just to
spite me? Boy, all those human beings posting to USENET sure will be
surprised when this draft becomes a standard and they suddenly stop being
humans.
What a group. I'd not have believed it unless I lived it.