Subject: Re: ISSUE: 3.2.14 : <sender>

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:01:57 -0800 (PST)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

Lots of details of Charles's setup deleted. Relevant bit:

>The injecting agent in my CNews knows perfectly well that
>it came from me BECAUSE THAT FROM HEADER WAS ACTUALLY INSERTED BY THAT
>INJECTING AGENT (and not by nn).

Now say something that proves I am wrong. Please.

Yes, your injecting agent was able to insert AN email address allegedly
belonging to you into a news article. I somehow doubt that that email
address is THE email address for you, however. THE WORDS MEAN THINGS.
ALL THE WORDS. DEFINITE ARTICLES ARE NOT THE SAME AS INDEFINITE ARTICLES.

Had you written "the possibility for an injecting agent to know an email 
address of the sender", that would be different.

The point remains, that knowing "an" email address for a sender is NOT 
sufficient to claim knowledge of what addresses are NOT the sender's.

>>An injecting agent cannot possibly know "the email address" I want to use
>>for USENET-related correspondence EXCEPT by my using it in the From or
>>Sender header I SEND IT.

>Hence the falsity of your statement is evident from the counter-example
>you are now looking at.

Your "counter example" has nothing to do with the statement I made. I 
don't use the same setup you do. There is NO injecting agent that can know
the email address I want to use for USENET EXCEPT by seeing it in the
From or Sender header I send it. The fact that YOUR injecting agent 
happens to pick ONE of the addresses you have and it is the one you want
used is a wonderful bit of luck for you, but has nothing at all to do with
the setup I use.

IETF standards are not supposed to be based on "wonderful bits of luck".
They are supposed to be factual. That's why the word "know" is important
is that statement I just made. It's not equivalent to "guess".

>I grant you that your statement is true as regards user agents that
>communicate with their servers via NNTP.

You just got done telling me that you had proven my statement false. Now
you say you grant that it is true. Pick one.

>I have never claimed otherwise.

]Hence the falsity of your statement is evident from the counter-example
]you are now looking at.

Did you or did you not write the words I quoted just above? Do you or do
you not understand the meaning of "falsity", and that it is the opposite
of "truth"?

"Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>John did NOT write "No injecting agent can determine the email address".
>But your counter-example seems to be refuting that exactly, and not
>what he wrote.

Actually, what Charles is busy refuting is a statement similar to "no 
injection agent can determine an email address", but that is still not
what I wrote, so he's busy refuting things that haven't been said and
ignoring those that have. (And yes, I actually did write something
that means "no injecting agent can determine the email address" that I
use for USENET-related email, because it cannot, and Charles's claims to
the contrary, he has not and did not prove me wrong on this. This has
been explained to him ad nauseum previously, and only appears again 
because HE brought it up again.)

The rest of Forrest's text is spot on. Either reject or accept, but MUST
NOT modify.