From: Bill Davidsen (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 04 2002 - 12:26:43 CST
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Seth Breidbart wrote:
> >>Charles Lindsey (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> >>> 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.
Is there a reason I don't recall for why we would allow this to be a
user-provided header? At all?
> 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.
That sounds right, hopefully the software will change over a few years.
-- -bill davidsen (email@example.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me