From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net)
Date: Thu Jun 13 2002 - 07:57:26 CDT
In <Gxn2zJ.M4v@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, on 06/13/2002
at 10:11 AM, "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> said:
>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).
No, I meant that inserting a Sender header into an article is a change
TO THAT ARTICLE.
>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.
That is precisely what John is complaining about. I agree with him: it
is neither desirable nor achievable to insert a correct Sender header.
I would prefer a MUST NOT, but that should at least be a SHOULD NOT.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
-----------------------------------------------------------