From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Mar 07 2002 - 07:41:02 CST
In <0whzo1lsu22.fsf@elaine0.Stanford.EDU> Brian Palmer <bpalmer@leland.stanford.edu> writes:
>chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
>
>> I think Brian Palmer's "deprecated" was a bit too strong, but I think your
>> "more desirable" is too weak.
>I am not sure that deprecation is quite the best way to handle it, but
>it seems to have many of the connotations you're looking for (works
>now, new applications should not use it and as software is updated
>that approach should be abandoned). We deprecate other things in the
>current draft, so it's not a novel concept, either.
I always understood the term "deprecated" was only to be used for things
that were really going to be obsoleted with a MUST NOT in the next
standard (such as the Lines header). I think the present situation is more
of an "Ought Not" than a "SHOULD NOT".
>
>> Essentially, we have some existing practice which we do not entirely like,
>> so we would like to apply gentle pressure to have that practice
>> changed.
>>
>> What I now have is:
>>
>> 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 has privacy implications, and it is
>> preferable to add any such tracing information via the Injector-Info
>> header as set out in 6.19.1.
>Specific phrases I now dislike are the 'ideally...',and the 'privacy
>implications' phrase, as it's very non-specific (and thus of little
>help to an implementor).
The main lecture on privacy implications is given in a NOTE in 6.19.1, and
I do not really want to repeat it here. The main intention is to persuade
them to use Injector-Info, and then they can go there and read the full
lecture, and then decide which option within Injector-Info to use.
But I agree that the "Ideally..." sentence adds nothing, and could come
out.
> ...may alter the posting agent's preferred presentation of
> information. Of especial note, adding a Sender-header exposes a
> mailbox to the article's recipients; information regarding the
> sender may better be placed by the injecting agent in the
> Injector-Info header as set out in 6.19.1.
I think "better" is even weaker than my "preferable".
What I now have is:
NOTE: The addition of non-mandatory headers by the injecting
agent may alter the posting agent's preferred presentation of
information. In particular, adding a Sender-header that exposes
a sender's mailbox has privacy implications, and it is
preferable to add any such tracing information using one of the
options provided for the Injector-Info header (6.19.1).
Observe that I now point out there are several options to choose from in
Injector-Info, so they should not go blindly for the 'sender' option.
So that just leaves those "privacy implications" words. Other opinions?
-- 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