Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 14 May 1999 00:51:26 -0500 |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Ben Parker wrote:
>
> As documented in Appendix B, you can only put
> Reply-To= user@address
> i.e. you can't specify a name. List Header keywords must be declared with an
> '=' sign, not ':'.
Just devious curiosity. Say you have listowner A who is really ticked
with subscribcer B, who has done nothing wrong, A just does not like B.
B is set to INDEX as there is heavy traffic on the list. A decides he
is going to "get' B. A rewrites the header so Reply-to is B and hides
that part of the header. B is flooded with eamil, for say a day, after
which the header is changed to normal. If B has a mail system where
he cannot see the full email header there is a fair chance he will not
figure out what is going on.
Any flaws in how that would work? If not, anything to prevent a
vindictive listowner from doing it, then claiming it was an aberation in
the system? (What tongue lashing, Francoise? I must have missed it.)
Douglas
|
|
|