1993-03-01 - header field indicating an anonymous address

Header Data

From: strat@intercon.com (Bob Stratton)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: b4fbbca0eeab79e15c59ddf36b05aad52060176b8bb0d0d797f8683d3b2e2584
Message ID: <9303010227.AA18304@intercon.com>
Reply To: <9303010202.AA17864@soda.berkeley.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-01 02:28:35 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 18:28:35 PST

Raw message

From: strat@intercon.com (Bob Stratton)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 18:28:35 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: header field indicating an anonymous address
In-Reply-To: <9303010202.AA17864@soda.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <9303010227.AA18304@intercon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>>>>> 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.