🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <19950401.141115.83@musicbox.demon.co.uk>,
Richard Birkett (richard@musicbox.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: 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!).

My understanding is that x-nntp-posting-host is added with IHAVE - 
NNTP-Posting-Host would be added for machines using POST anyway. Again,
unless my grin on sanity is less than I'd suspected it might be.

: 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;

Not unless the maillist software is _very_ broken ; Sender headers are
allowed for (specified?) in the appropriate RFC as a mechanism for actually
validating the UID used when mail is transmitted.

: also, insisting on a spurious Organization: line is
: *contrary* to RFC1036 which states that this header is optional).

It's optional, you're quite correct - however if you omit it then
the NNTP server which you use will quite happily tack on a default; 
is there any NNTP server software which doesn't add it?

: 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.

Given that argument always rages as to whether 'world' is a valid distribution
anyway...

--
-- Dave Williams
-- E-Mail: dave@demon.net -- Phone:  0181 371 1000
-- Disclaimer: These opinions are MINE, not those of Demon Internet Limited