Subject: Re: #1082 USEFOR 3.2.9 Need more text about Approved header field seman

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:10:51 GMT

#1082 is a ticket created by Alexey, but not formally introduced to this
list. Its full text is:

Charles wrote:

The 1st paragraph could usefully mention moderation and control
messages as the two most important applications of this header.

There should also be a sentence (maybe in a NOTE) such as the
following

The presence of a this header implies a claim to have authority
to post the article, thus assisting other sites to determine
whether to accept or act upon it.

in order to explain the semantics of this header.

The first addition is simply a matter of being helpful to the reader (the
present text is a bit bare), and should not be controversial.

The second addition is less important, but should be considered. There was
a comparable text in the old draft-13.

Essentially, it is generally considered a serious and LARTable offence to
forge-approved a moderated article without the permission of the
moderator. The proposed text respresents, I believe, the original intent
of the Approved header (now much watered down by years of misuse). But at
least it would provide some ammunition to use against less clueful ISPs to
demonstrate that the perpetrator was indeed trying to pass himself off as
something that he was not.

Alternatively, you might want this to be dealt with in USEAGE.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:03:33 +0200

Charles Lindsey wrote:

> (the present text is a bit bare)

It has two MUST, what's the complete text for 3.2.9 after your
modification ?  The proposed "Note" is fine, but you're talking
about _two_ modifications, what's the second addition ?

Or if the "Note" is the second addition, what's the first ?

> Essentially, it is generally considered a serious and
> LARTable offence to forge-approved a moderated article
> without the permission of the moderator.

Depends.  I feel entitled to approve my own Cancel messages
affecting all articles claiming to be "from" me, no matter
what the status of the groups might be.  But that would be
of course my own address, and not a forged moderator address.

> it would provide some ammunition to use against less clueful
> ISPs to demonstrate that the perpetrator was indeed trying
> to pass himself off as something that he was not.

Abusing foreign addresses in Approved is of course evil, same
as anywhere else (From / Sender / Reply-To, modulo what you
said elsewhere about some tolerated spam cancels).

                          Bye, Frank

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:02:14 GMT

>about _two_ modifications, what's the second addition ?

My first change would augment the 1st paragraph with an extra sentence,
something like:

3.2.9  Approved 

   The Approved header field indicates the mailing addresses (and
   possibly the full names) of the persons or entities approving the
   article for posting. Its principal uses are in moderated articles and
   in group control messages [USEPRO].

The rest is the same until you get to the "Note".

>Or if the "Note" is the second addition, what's the first ?

The "Note" is the second.

>of course my own address, and not a forged moderator address.

There is no requirement in USEPRO for an Approved header in a cancel
message, though it is mentioned as a possibility.

USEAGE goes further and says you MUST include it for 3rd party cancels,
and may for 2nd party cancels too.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 20:28:23 +0100

>messages as the two most important applications of this header.
This seems reasonable to me.

>Alternatively, you might want this to be dealt with in USEAGE.
Yes, the note belongs to USEAGE.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:47:50 GMT

>This seems reasonable to me.

OK, I proposed an actual sentence in response to Frank.

>Yes, the note belongs to USEAGE.

I have no particular problem with writing it into USEAGE. There was one
response from Frank which could be interpreted as slight support for
leaving it in USEFOR.

Let us wait a day or so for further opinions, with a presumption that it
goes into USEAGE unless we hear otherwise.