From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Jan 14 2002 - 05:33:39 CST
In <200201111356.g0BDudf03439@jefferson.patriot.net> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <Shmuel@acm.org> writes:
>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.
OK, I think "well beyond" overdoes it slightly, but I have now put
"...privacy implications over and above those set out in..."
which I think makes it clear which of the two techniques is preferable.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5