From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Mutlu violating Usenet RFC
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:13:16 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <18m78pINN6nm@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:

	I'm going to suggest that the Mutlu-type posts from zuma.uucp
and related sites be stopped for the simple reason that he's violating
the Usenet RFCs in a massive and repeated manner.  i.e. that it's ok not
to propogate them or it would be ok to cancel them.

--
From RFC850 (Usenet Message standard)
 2.1.3  From  The From line contains the electronic mailing
 address  of  the  person who sent the message, in the ARPA
 internet syntax.  It may optionally also contain the  full
 name  of  the person, in parentheses, after the electronic
 address.  The electronic address is the same as the entity
 responsible for originating the article, unless the Sender
 header is present, in which case the From header might not
 be  verified.   Note  that  in  all site and domain names,
 upper  and  lower  case  are  considered  the  same,  thus
 mark@cbosgd.UUCP,  mark@cbosgd.uucp,  and mark@CBosgD.UUcp
 are all equivalent.  User names may or  may  not  be  case
 sensitive,   for   example,   Billy@cbosgd.UUCP  might  be
 different from BillY@cbosgd.UUCP.  Programs  should  avoid
 changing  the case of electronic addresses when forwarding
 news or mail.
--

	This standard requires that a message contain a From: header
line with the sender's actual email address.  While there have
been instances before on Usenet where invalid From: headers were
accepted as legitimate articles, these generally were during
times of email propogation problems et. al.  Not when
intentionally false email addresses were used.  Instances
of intentionally false email addresses generally are referred
to as "forgeries" and are bad for two reasons; one, the
responsible person is unknown, and two, there is no way
for feedback (replies) to be sent to the sender.

	The "Mutlu" posts of late fail to contain a valid
 From: header field: they all contain the email site of zuma.uucp,
which no name server or the Network Information Center will identify
as being real.  Thus the post all contain intentionally false
email addresses and are invalid Usenet messages per RFC850.

	The reasoning behind the requirement for a valid email
address was, (my opinion based on historical evidence) a requirement
that if you posted to the world, the world had to be able to
reply back to you; that Usenet was not to be a one-way communications
media.  The current crop of "Mutlu" posts fail this test massively.
	This does not necessarily mean that the user's true name
must directly be connected to the post; several anonymous posting
mechanisms with email reflector setups have been installed and
accepted by the net community.  However, it does require that
by some method a reply be capable of reaching the message's 
origionator, which in this case is impossible since the site
doesn't exist.

	This is totally seperate from the controversy about the
appropriateness of the postings by themselves.  My opinion about
that is that the best way to stop them is for all offended parties
to email a copy of each offensive post back to the origionator.
If enough people were truly put off, the poster would get the message.
However, since any hope of reply has been disgarded by the forged
site name, the "Mutlu" posters are now not just ignoring nettiquette
and sensitivity, but are thumbing their noses at the accountability
required by the Usenet standards.  This abuse is beyond what Usenet
should, IMHO, tolerate, and the postings should not be carried by this
net until that situation is remedied.  As soon as acceptable
reply paths are added to these messages this sanction should be
lifted immediately.

	I am certainly not in any position to impliment this, but
would suggest that it be considered.


   -george william herbert
   gwh@soda.berkeley.edu  gwh@lurnix.com
++ copyright 1992 george william herbert. All rights reserved.  Permission   ++
++ granted for Usenet transmission/use and followup/reply articles/mail use  ++

Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish,soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.europe