From: Seth Breidbart (sethb@panix.com)
Date: Thu Jan 03 2002 - 23:04:31 CST
>>Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk):
>
>>> except that it MAY alter a Sender
>>> header (6.2) that it perceives to be incorrect ...
>
>>> Is that OK?
>
>>No. No. And no. Injecting agents cannot "perceive" anything. They cannot
>>know. All they can do is guess, and they should not be guessing.
>
> Well yes, I am now proposing to take that bit out again (see my reply to
> Bill Davidsen), unless I hear screams from the other camp. But my main
> reason for taking it out is that I think Injector-Info is a better place
> to do it (for those injectors that insist on doing it somewhere).
I agree that Injector-Info is a better place to do it; however, that
header might be included by a poster and signed, so the "breaking of a
signed article" problem cannot be avoided.
To the extent that this draft is codifying existing practice, I think
that including a warning in the Note is the right thing to do. If we
want to say "MUST NOT" alter a Sender header, I don't have a problem
with that; but we should note that a lot of existing software is
non-compliant with that requirement.
Seth