header field indicating an anonymous address
Marc R. suggests that we standardize on a header field to indicate that a message was anonymous. I suggest "Anon-Sender:". There's already a "Sender:" field in RFC-822, indicating who sent the message, as separate from who wrote the message. The "Anon-Sender:" field should contain an email address for the maintainer of the remailer. Why? To facilitate complaints. :-) Eric
Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu> writes:
Eric> Marc R. suggests that we standardize on a header field Eric> to indicate that a message was anonymous. Eric> I suggest "Anon-Sender:". There's already a "Sender:" Eric> field in RFC-822, indicating who sent the message, as Eric> separate from who wrote the message. The "Anon-Sender:" Eric> field should contain an email address for the maintainer Eric> of the remailer. I think that's certainly a viable idea. Of course, the Sender: field is more honored in the breach than the observance by many mailers. Another thing to remember is "Errors-To:" which can save a lot of grief when handling bounces. Eric> Why? To facilitate complaints. :-) It would warm my heart to see questions like this come up at IETF meetings. Keep up the good work. --Strat
I suggest "Anon-Sender:". There's already a "Sender:" field in RFC-822, indicating who sent the message, as separate from who wrote the message. The "Anon-Sender:" field should contain an email address for the maintainer of the remailer.
Anon.penet.fi has supported the Sender: field from the start. This has forced me to use an automatic script that send a message like this: (it gets to handle 20-30 messages/day) I don't think this was intended for me (anon@penet.fi, the anon server administrator, also working under names "daemon" and "julf"). I suppose you wanted to send it to an<something>@anon.penet.fi, but accidentally replied to the envelope "Sender:" address instead of the "From:" orginator address... Julf
participants (3)
-
Eric Hughes -
Johan Helsingius -
strat＠intercon.com