Subject: #1159 USEFOR 3.2.14 - POLL for Proposed resolution, posting-account etcetera

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:31:58 +0100

After reviewing discussion again....

 a NEW proposed alternate text:

  The "posting-account" <parameter> identifies the source from which
  that news server received the article, in a notation that can be
  interpreted by the news server admin. This notation can include any
  info the admin deems pertinent, such as the authorized and/or
  authenticated identity of the poster. In order to limit the exposure
  of personal data, it SHOULD be given in a form that can't be interpreted
  by other sites, but two messages posted from the same account SHOULD
  have the same value of "posting-account".

  The "sender" <parameter> identifies a mailbox that the news server
  configuration shows as one that can be used to reach the user posting 
the article. There is
  no implied relationship between the "sender" parameter and the "From"
  or "Sender" header fields of the article.

  It is a matter of local policy whether to include the "posting-account"
  <parameter>, the "sender" <parameter>, both, or neither.

I'm asking Ken to include this text in -07; I believe it's clearer than 
what's there now.

The change from the previous version is that the constancy of 
"posting-account" has been noted. But the discussion did not show any 
consistent support for keeping any of these parameters, so I'm making 
this another poll....

A) Accept text above - keep posting-account and sender parameters

B) Remove posting-account from the spec, keep sender

C) Remove sender from the spec, keep posting-account

D) Remove both sender and posting-account from the spec

E) I have another opinion

The text above will be adjusted accordingly if anything is removed; if 
you want to suggest specific modifications to the text, please REMOVE 
the word "POLL" from this subject line.

                  Harald

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:01:39 -0800

> E) I have another opinion

I vote for C.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:13:10 GMT

>E) I have another opinion

I vote for A.

But I could live with C.

-- 
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: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:26:42 GMT

>  have the same value of "posting-account".

Yes, that is better, but I still detect a slight inconsistency. If the
authenticated identity of the poster (presumably some text agreed between
the poster and the admin) has some obvious relation to the name/identity
of the poster (e.g. it is his email address, as is sometimes the case),
then clearly other sites will be able to interpret it. IOW that 1st
"SHOULD" is a bit too strong. Perhaps some text involving "should
preferably" would work better.

It is, in any case, a matter for the poster and the admin to sort out
between them, and the most our text should be doing is to draw attention
to something they should be bearing in mind. And, of course, USEAGE may
well say more.

>  <parameter>, the "sender" <parameter>, both, or neither.

A more general sentence incorporating all the various parameters would be
better, possibly with a pointer to USEAGE for further discussion.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 19:34:49 +0100

> I vote for C.

Dito  {{ adding the usual disclaimer about "voting"... ;-) }}

---

From: Richard Clayton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:05:09 +0000

In message <[email-masked]>, Harald Alvestrand
<[email-masked]> writes

>E) I have another opinion

once again, apologies for being slow

I prefer (C) ... a posting account corresponds to current practice.

The "sender" concept is fundamentally flawed because people just won't
want to see a working email address there (they'll be paranoid about
spam) so it will either end up obfuscated or rubbish. Anyone using it to
try and contact a poster will need their head examined :(

I'm still a bit (E) in that I don't see that the privacy issue is a
SHOULD rather than a MAY. Usenet is a public medium and many sites treat
it as such -- I don't see that they need to go against a SHOULD if they
wish to continue to do so

- -- 
richard @ highwayman . com                       "Nothing seems the same
                          Still you never see the change from day to day
                                And no-one notices the customs slip away"

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:11:54 GMT

>wish to continue to do so

Yes, I agree with that to the extent that we should not be using any
SHOULD wording with regard to which <parameter>s in the Injection-Info
header to use (whatever set of parameters we finally have). USEAGE is the
proper place to discuss that, though a pointer to USEAGE would be
perfectly in order.