From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 11 2002 - 03:56:24 CST
In <Gsq1q3.1AG@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> Clive D.W. Feather (clive@demon.net) writes:
>However, I've figured out what was nagging me about this. The assumption
>throughout this discussion has been that the reason injectors add Sender:
>is for traceability. When this is the case (and it often is),
>Injector-Info: is better. However, this wording fails to allow for other
>situations.
>Try this:
> 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; where the main or
> only purpose for doing so is as tracing information, it is
> preferable for injecting agents to instead use one of the
> options provided for the Injector-Info header (6.19.1).
Well yes, but not with that split infinitive :-( .
I now have:
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; where the main or
only purpose for doing so is as tracing information, it is
preferable to use instead one of the options provided for the
Injector-Info header (6.19.1).
-- 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