Re: Sender header

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 26 2002 - 04:52:05 CST


In <20020225100604.GD48436@finch-staff-1.demon.net> "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net> writes:

>Charles Lindsey said:
>> The current draft is MAY for adding it

>Sender, I presume [I'm losing track of the context here]

>> (but with a discouraging NOTE) and
>> a SHOULD NOT for changing it if it is already there.

>SHOULD NOT change any header (apart from the explicitly permitted ones), I
>take it ?

Exactly so. Just to keep us all on track, here is the exact wording we are
concerned about:

   10. The injecting agent MAY add other headers not already provided
        by the poster, but SHOULD NOT alter, delete or reorder any
        headers already present in the article, except that existing
        headers intended for tracing purposes, such as Injector-Info and
        Complaints-To, are to be removed as already mentioned. The
        injecting agent MUST NOT alter the body of the article in any
        way.

        NOTE: Care needs to be exercised, when adding any non-mandatory
        header in this way, to ensure that the intentions of the poster
        are preserved. In particular, the addition of a Sender-header
        would have privacy implications over and above those set out in
        6.19.1 regarding the Injector-Info-header.

Having said that, I think the NOTE could be improved, so I now propose:

[Alternative note]
 
        NOTE: Care needs to be exercised, when adding any non-mandatory
        header in this way, to ensure that the intentions of the poster
        are preserved. In particular, for tracing or accountability
        purposes, it is preferable to make use of the Injector-Info-
        header (bearing in mind the privacy implications set out in
        6.19.1) rather than to add, say, a Sender-header.

Is that agreeable? Note that it does not outlaw the "current practice" that
Russ is concerned about, but it does suggest that said current practice is
now somewhat outmoded.

>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. However, I don't have the time to do the rewrite myself.

A would say that "entity", according to context, can mean a specific human
being (Clive feather), an unspecific human being (postmaster) or a 'bot
(majordomo).

-- 
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


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.