🚀 go-pugleaf

Tom Hughes <tom@compton.demon.co.uk> said:

> They are allowed to rewrite header for NNTP POST, but not for IHAVE. In
> particular, the adding of X-Nntp-Posting-Host is a *very* good idea, as
> it enables better tracking of messages if people try forging, spamming
> or other net abuse.

I fully support an *extra* header line added as a security measure, and
perhaps X-Nntp-Posting-Host or something similar should be added even to
IHAVE articles for this reason (the RFCs weren't written with much
security in mind, so could safely be "interpreted" here, as they seem
to have been elsewhere anyway!).  However, I do object to existing lines
being changed, or indeed anything else that may affect the functionality
or meaning of the message (eg. adding a Sender: line may mess up mailing
list bounces; also, insisting on a spurious Organization: line is
*contrary* to RFC1036 which states that this header is optional).

(I'm back to using NNTP POST, as it's far quicker - so my date is
probably back to GMT now... It was Sat, 01 Apr 1995 14:11:15 +0100 when I
sent it, and on previous evidence could now be anything between 13:11 and
15:11 GMT!).

ObAcorn: !TTFN putting in a "Distribution: world" line is just as bad. 
At least the user has a chance to delete or change that before sending.

-- 
 /  Richard Birkett   <><    ><>    <><   |   Cambridge, UK   \
 \  Email: richard@musicbox.demon.co.uk   |                   /