From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Jun 13 2002 - 05:11:43 CDT
In <200206121539.g5CFdfhc019023@jefferson.patriot.net> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <Shmuel+gen@patriot.net> writes:
>In <200206111409.PAA10165@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, on 06/11/2002
> at 03:09 PM, Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> said:
>>I also hear no requests to take further action on John Stanley's
>>points.
>I sent earlier messages agreeing with him. Injecting a Sender header
>*IS* a change and has significant privacy ramifications. I have no
>problem with a warning that legacy software may be injecting spurious
>headers, but the text should clearly identify such behavior as broken
>and noncompliant.
The text in 8.2.2 Step 10 (which is itself the result of long discussions
and many intermediate versions) makes it clear that injecting a
Sender-header is a poor thing to do, though it does not render it
noncompliant.
The reason it is so is that we were told that injecting such a
Sender-header is a fairly widespread current practice which members of
this list did not want to outlaw completely. Thus you are incorrect in
saying that "Injecting a Sender header *IS* a change" (if what you meant
was a change to the protocol/standard, and not a change to the particular
article).
-- 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