Re: Face Header

[Daniel Pittman]

Slackrat <gnoose@azurservers.com> writes:
> Daniel Pittman a écrit profondement:
> | Slackrat <gnoose@azurservers.com> writes:
> | 
> | > I'm catching a lot of static from a certain quarter about my face header.
> | > It has been declared SPAM and I'm threatened with being blocked from a
> | > certain domain.
> | 
> | That seems a bit excessive.  However...
> | 
> | > Does anyone know if there is an RFC to cover the insertion of the gnus 
> face
> | > header please?
> | 
> | ...there isn't one.
>
> Thanks Daniel
>
> And for the record, signatures like yours drive the idiot completely
> _Bonkerz_ ;)

Hah.  Now, for *those* there is a standard. ;)

Um, I should possibly say that the header isn't illegal by the standard, just
not defined officially.  So, it isn't /wrong/ to use it, as such, any more
than the extra headers various MTA / GroupWare packages use for internal
and/or external routing or whatever.

        Daniel

So, yeah, the recipient is in the wrong and all, I think.  Mostly.  Except
that Face headers /are/ a waste of ~ 1KB per email out and all.
-- 
✣ Daniel Pittman            ✉ daniel@rimspace.net            ☎ +61 401 155 707
               ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons
   Looking for work?  Love Perl?  In Melbourne, Australia?  We are hiring.