From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Date: Wed Jan 02 2002 - 11:07:23 CST
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> "Sender" has always been more of an mail thing than a news thing. In RFC
> 2822, it MUST be present if there are two or more entities in the From,
> and it SHOULD be present if the From is not the true originator (cue Brad
> to say that RFC 2822 is forcing implementors to deny privacy rights). Who
> is supposed to enforce this? Presumably the mailing agent rather than the
> MTA, since mail has no equivalent of our injecting agent.
>
> Our draft contains neither that MUST nor that SHOULD, so it is left for
> posting and injecting agents to do whatever they like. OTOH, Son-of-1036
> had a very severe MUST for the case when the From could not be verified.
> Does anybody want to change what we currently say?
>
> >> What now is the injecting agent to do when it sees both a From and a
> >> Sender, and is not convinced about either?
>
> >Traditionally, replace the user-supplied Sender header with its own.
>
> Yes, Son-of-1036 said you MUST do that.
>
> I think I would like to change our draft at least to say that an injecting
> agent MAY supply a Sender, or overwrite an existing one, since that seems
> to be existing practice. Is that agreeable?
The problem with strong wording is that it is likely to be read as
requiring a "real" address when a munged From: is used to prevent address
collection. I believe Son-of-1036 was written in less dangerous times.
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me