Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id XAA21755; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 23:22:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Sun, 28 Sep 1997 23:19:59 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id XAA21671; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 23:19:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from resnick1.qualcomm.com (resnick1.qualcomm.com [206.139.85.98]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id XAA21660; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 23:19:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (206.139.85.99) by resnick1.qualcomm.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.0b3); Sun, 28 Sep 1997 22:19:46 -0500 X-Sender: resnick@resnick1.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19970929025014.5373.qmail@cr.yp.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 4.0a25-1.98] Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 22:19:37 -0500 To: drums@cs.utk.edu From: Pete Resnick Subject: Re: replying to Bcc On 9/28/97 at 9:50 PM -0500, D. J. Bernstein wrote: >A user wants to put an address in the To line. This is not a security >problem. This is not an interoperability problem. It's his decision. An MUA wants to automatically put an address in a To line and send it on the net without the user being any the wiser. That *is* a security problem. And that's what the recommendation is there for. >Changing ``MUST'' to ``SHOULD'' There was no change here. It's always been SHOULD NOT. Is there anyone else who thinks this is a problem, or do we already have consensus on this particular point? pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated Work: (217)337-6377 or (619)651-4478 / Fax: (217)337-1980