From: Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se)
Date: Sat Mar 02 2002 - 15:01:58 CST
Brian Palmer <bpalmer@leland.stanford.edu> writes:
> chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
> > Exactly so. Just to keep us all on track, here is the exact wording we are
> > concerned about:
> >
> > 10. The injecting agent MAY add other headers not already provided
> > by the poster, but SHOULD NOT alter, delete or reorder any
> > headers already present in the article, except that existing
> > headers intended for tracing purposes, such as Injector-Info and
> > Complaints-To, are to be removed as already mentioned. The
> > injecting agent MUST NOT alter the body of the article in any
> > way.
>
> This sentence is somewhat confusing, in that it zigs and zags. How about
>
> The injecting agent MAY add other headers not already provided
> by the poster, but SHOULD NOT alter, delete, or reorder any
> non-tracing header. The injecting agent MUST NOT alter the
> body of the article in any way.
I much prefer Charles's wording as it explicitly lists Injector-Info
and Complaints-To.
> > [Alternative note]
> >
> > 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, for tracing or accountability
> > purposes, it is preferable to make use of the Injector-Info-
> > header (bearing in mind the privacy implications set out in
> > 6.19.1) rather than to add, say, a Sender-header.
>
> And we're dancing around the point, here, and being unduly
> passive. How about
>
> NOTE: The addition of non-mandatory headers by the injecting
> agent may alter the posting agent's preferred presentation of
> information. Ideally, the injecting agent will comply with the
> poster's preferences; in particular, adding a Sender-header
> that exposes a sender's mailbox is deprecated in favor of
> adding tracing information via the Injector-Info header (see
> 6.19.1 for usage notes on Injector-Info).
I prefer Charles's wording in the alternative note, which I think was
an improvement over the previous. But I could live with Brian Palmer's
suggestion too.
However, shouldn't we add a note of similar kind in section 6.2 too?
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar@algonet.se