From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel@acm.org)
Date: Fri Jan 11 2002 - 07:53:57 CST
In <Gpo6FB.Ky@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, on 01/09/2002
at 11:54 AM, chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) said:
> 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 similar to those set out in
> 6.19.1 regarding the Injector-Info header.
That would imply that injecting a Sender header is no worse than
injecting an Injector-Infor header. For those who are concerned with
spam but not with anonimity, injecting a Sender header is far worse. I
suggest:
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 well beyond those set out in
6.19.1 regarding the Injector-Info header, e.g., address
harvesting
for purposes of sending UBE.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
-----------------------------------------------------------