From: Seth Breidbart (sethb@panix.com)
Date: Tue Feb 26 2002 - 07:13:41 CST
>>It strikes me
>>a bit funny, though, to label a behaviour as "MUST NOT" when it was
>>permitted by previous standards,
> 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.
However, going from MAY (or SHOULD) to MUST NOT is a rather extreme
jump. I'd prefer to go to SHOULD NOT, rather than requiring a sudden
switch in software.
>>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.
You're objecting to SENDER in part because it's unencrypted (or at
least, that's how I've interpreted some of your statements). Yet it's
permitted (at the same level as we're arguing for SENDER) for
INJECTOR-INFO to be unencrypted.
>>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?
Where did he write "cannot"? He said that "entity" is not _defined_
to mean "a specific human being". A role account is an entity that is
not necesarily a specific human being.
As far as Panix's injector knows (or can know) when I post, the entity
posting is defined as "those who are authorized to use the
sethb@panix.com account and who have demonstrated that
authorization". By Panix's policies, the former half of that phrase
is me (sharing personal accounts is not permitted); however, similar
policies are not necessarily in place at other injectors.
Seth