ietf-nntp Clients should be able to set the Path
Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org> Thu, 19 December 1996 14:54 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa01391; 19 Dec 96 9:54 EST
Received: from ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10587;
19 Dec 96 9:54 EST
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) id
IAA15196 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 08:52:22 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: academ2.academ.com: majordomo set sender to
owner-ietf-nntp using -f
Received: from academ.com (root@ACADEM.COM [198.137.249.2]) by
academ2.academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA15191 for
<ietf-nntp@ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM>; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 08:52:20 -0600 (CST)
Received: from postman.osf.org (postman.osf.org [130.105.1.152]) by academ.com
(8.8.3/8.7.1) with ESMTP id IAA14160 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>;
Thu, 19 Dec 1996 08:52:18 -0600 (CST)
Received: from sulphur.osf.org (sulphur.osf.org [130.105.1.123]) by
postman.osf.org (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA15724 for
<ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 09:51:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>
Received: by sulphur.osf.org (1.38.193.4/4.7) id AA17113;
Thu, 19 Dec 1996 09:50:33 -0500
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 09:50:33 -0500
Message-Id: <9612191450.AA17113@sulphur.osf.org>
To: ietf-nntp@academ.com
Subject: ietf-nntp Clients should be able to set the Path
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk
An earlier message gave a real-world example where someone needed to set the Path to avoid hassles, or possible legal problems. You might think it stupid but that doesn't matter -- it's a real-world case. I can imagine other cases that might arise such as "I do not want this article to enter the official Usenet gateway for Singapore or China." (Both countries have such official gateways, or will soon.) Now, you can argue that this should be China's issue, not the readers. But you'd be wrong, pragmatically. Ever been a dissident? I haven't, but I've heard some speak. Is this a likely scenario? I don't know. Is it possible? Most definitely. I can imagine another case where I use my ISP account and put "!osf.org" in the path because it could adversely affect my standing at work. Sure, others could mail the article, but at least I have plausible deniability in those cases. Again, possible. There are probably other scenarios. Now, in order to catch spammers, many people on this list are willing to "make impossible" all of the above. I believe, quite strongly, that they are wrong. I see no reason to define a protocol that sacrifices much in the name of fictitious perfect accountability. (As long as ISP's give out free disks, you will never get there.) I consider the people who argue against my position to be in the same league as those who support the US policies on cryptography. /r$
- ietf-nntp Clients should be able to set the Path Rich Salz
- Re: ietf-nntp Clients should be able to set the P… Evan Champion
- Re: ietf-nntp Clients should be able to set the P… Chris Caputo
- Re: ietf-nntp Clients should be able to set the P… Chris Lewis