Re: #1416 Injection-Date: current wording proposal (corrected)

[Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Charles Lindsey <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>>>> +            not syntactically valid as defined by <xref target="USEFOR"
>>>> +            />.  It SHOULD reject any proto-article which contains a
>>>> +            header field deprecated for Netnews.  It MAY reject any
>>>                                                  ^
>>>                                       (see e.g. <xref RFC2298>)

>> RFC 2298 is obsolete, so I don't really want to generate even an
>> informative reference to it, and the superseding RFC (RFC 3798) makes no
>> mention of Netnews, so I'm not sure this is a great example or
>> particularly helpful for the reader.

> No, RFC 3798 still contains the relevant wording:

>    Messages posted to newsgroups SHOULD NOT have a Disposition-
>    Notification-To header.

Ah, newsgroups.  That's one of the keywords I didn't search for.

Added to my draft text.

> The problem is that use of that header in Netnews can give rise to the
> Mother of all Mailbombs. This is also a Security Consideration, and I
> think it is also mentioned as such (or should be).

I think it's overkill to be that worried about an obscure header that no
one has ever implemented for Netnews.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>