Aaron Swartz <me(_at_)aaronsw(_dot_)com> writes:
4) Any held message that is later approved for distribution on the
mailing list should appear on the list as a normal posting (e.g.,
with the proper sender in the From address, etc.).
"""
Later, however, you write:
[...] However, in
the second message, he manually inserted my subscription
address,
despite my previous comments about private subscription
addresses
and forged unsubscription requests. (Was this malicious, or was
it
just mind-bogglingly stupid?)
Or perhaps, it was to make it clear to the poster which address the
posting was coming from, since there seems to be confusion at times
about whether someone is posting from the same address to which they
are subscribed.
Including someone's private subscription address is not done for a
normal posting. Doing it for a held message is a violation of the rule
above, no?
My recollection of the intent of the spam guidelines cited is two
things:
1) it wasn't good enough to just resend the message to the list such
that the message now appeared to have come from the person who
forwarded it. This makes it hard to quote authors appropriately in
followups, find specific messages (e.g., to search for the message
by the original poster). That sort of thing.
2) It wasn't appropriate to edit the message in a way that might lead
someone to claim that the message had been edited to alter its
intent.
Namedropper's mail that is manually forwarded has (for as long as I
can remember) included a line indicating it has been forwarded. The
current message (which was improved as a result of the recent
attention) is:
[ post by non-subscriber. with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers. if you wish to regularly
post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
message to <listname>-owner(_at_)ops(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org and ask to have the
alternate
address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
automatically accepted. ]
This seems like a reasonable thing to add to such messages. I would
not want the guidelines cited to mean this is not permissable or that
no other modification was permissible (e.g., adding a header line).
One can debate whether including the specific information cited above
was the right thing to do, but I don't see it as breach of the
guidelines.
Thomas