At 09:46 AM 7/4/96 -0700, Brock Rozen wrote:
>> 1. Approved: in the headers.
>> 2. Approved: as first line in the body, followed by headers and body of
>> approved message.
>> 3. Approved: as first line in the body, followed by rest of message.
>> 4, 5. Approved: somewhere in body, followed by headers and body or just
>> body.
>> Chan proposes disallowing #3. It's really only a convenience to keep
>> things from being bounced to the moderator if the submitter knows the
>> password and has a stupid mailer. I think it would be nice to allow it
>> just because, but only if it can be done cleanly. Thoughts?
>
>If somebody can do #3 than they can definetly do #2, so what's the
>difference? In #3 majordomo would use the headers already present in the
>message. In #2 the user supplies the headers. I don't think there's any
>reason to disallow #3, and actually, I think it's something good to have.
>Regardless, wouldn't it take majordomo more processing with #2 because
>when it finds the Approved header it also needs to verify that headers
>exist after it, but in #3 it just finds Approved and processes without
>regard to headers (if they exist then it turns into #2).
I've just been following along, but #3 is really as needed as #1. With more
and more people using software such as Eudora to manage majordomo lists,
adding approved to the headers is becoming less an option. If it is
disallowed, people are immediately going to start hacking the software to
allow it. I need that option NOW with the current released version. Wouldn't
it make more sense to allow it in the official version instead of requiring
people to immediately hack it?
>> Note that allowing both #2 and #3 introduces an ambiguity; how can you tell
>> that what follows is headers or body? To solve this I propose that instead
>> of Approved:, the string Approved-Body: be used in #3 to indicate that the
>> body is approved but that the original headers be kept. This is added
>> complexity, which isn't great since people with braindead software tend not
>> to know much about what's going on but I can't see another way around it.
>> We're adding capability here.
>
---Michael
Help Support "A Minor Consideration"
http://www.minorcon.org
|
|
