🚀 go-pugleaf

bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) uttered thus:
>In article <920652723.19323.0.nnrp-10.d4e48b20@news.demon.co.uk>
>           {$NNTPJan98$}@dytes.demon.co.uk "Alisdair Wren" writes:
>> This is slightly off-topic, and has rather more to do with policies of 
>> the internet as opposed to standards etc...
>> I have often seen Organisation headers added by ISPs to Usenet articles 
>> posted without a user's Organisation header.  I have heard it said
>> (perhaps erroneously) that European NNTP peering arrangements force all 
>> ISPs to add Organisation headers to their customer's posts.
>I can state absolutely and categorically that no ISP (European or
>otherwise) would EVER add an Organisation header.
>An Organization header, OTOH, might be different.  [Hint: "local"
>spelling variations count for nothing in the face of an RFC.]

Yup - sorry - force of habit whilst typing... I sometimes embrace 
anglicisms somewhat over-vehemently ;-)... I've only just managed to 
stop typing <CENTRE^H^HER> when writing HTML.

>I wasn't aware of any such "arrangement" as you describe.  As a sort of
>test, I'm removing my customary Organization header from this post (which
>will enter Usenet via Demon's mail2news gateway).  I note, incidentally,
>that your post did not include any Organization header, which would seem
>to give the lie to your theory, at least wrt Demon.

I'm aware that Demon don't do this, however, I'm not sure exactly what 
sort of peering arrangements Demon have for NNTP - whether they peer 
with European providers directly, and whether those that do are 
required to add this header.  I assume that they do, and there therefore 
they don't respectively - which means I've been callously lied to ;-).

Thanks,

-- 
Alisdair
Reply-To valid for a while.  Don't mail me copies of group posts.