Charlie Summers wrote:
[snip old bits]
> But his unnecessary over-quoting, ASCII
> signature, and bothersome top-posting aside, the situation Mr. Bailey notes
> _does_ exist on some machines even if it is different than what Mr. Giorgi
> was discussing, so if you're really paranoid about security, the only way to
> be certain a machine over which you have no control won't expand in clear
> additional envelope addresses is to make sure there's only one there.
Well, overquoting is easy to slip into, and I am always being reminded
to cut it dowen to the essecially required parts. sigh. And the sigfile
has been edited as you see below.
but I am devloping tinylist, and some users of it NEED to have security.
Granted that some lists do not demand this, and it is not for them
important, but I have to take into account that SOME users WILL need it.
I saw one MLM which stuffed the entire list of recipients into the TO:
field. Big bad idea. Not only does it give away lots of addresses, it also
can (on a large list) exaust the available space for the headers.
--
end
Respectfully,
Kirk D Bailey
"Thou Art Free." - Eris
---------------------------------------------
Introducing NetZero Long Distance
1st month Free!
Sign up today at: www.netzerolongdistance.com
References:
|
|
