From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Sun Feb 01 2004 - 06:10:08 CST
Charles Lindsey wrote:
>In <Pine.LNX.4.53.0401201802530.5315@a.shell.peak.org> John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes:
>
>
>
>>New issue:
>>
>>
>> 2. It SHOULD verify that the article is from a trusted source.
>> However, it MAY allow articles in which headers contain "forged"
>> email addresses, that is, addresses which are not valid for the
>> known and trusted source, especially if they end in ".invalid".
>>
>>
>>I'm sorry, but "forged" is not a synonym for "addresses which are not
>>valid for the known and trusted source". The injecting agent at the site I
>>post most often from may authenticate me as a "trusted source", but it
>>sure does not know the entire scope of addresses that are valid for me. It
>>is absolutely ridiculous to try to claim that my use of one of my other
>>email addresses (out of the literally millions that are valid) is forgery.
>>
>>
>>A better word is "unverified".
>>
>>
>
>I am very reluctant to change this wording considering the long battles
>which forged it into its present form. But if I hear a consensus for this
>change then I will make it.
>
>
John has a valid point, and I support a change as suggested.