-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:47:27 +0100 (BST) David Lee <t.d.lee@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
Not "Authenticated". That implies that authentication has already occurred. What you're doing is supplying a token to be used for authentication. So, "Authentication" would be better. Or even "Password".
I had picked on the past-tense terminology ("Authorised", "Authenticated", etc.) simply because the FAQ talks about an "Approved" (past tense) header. But I believe the code also accepts (present tense) "Approve". So I had antcipated that my proposal would be similarly tense-tolerant!
Password seems reasonable.
Oh, and if it's an email header, shouldn't it be X-Authentication, or whatever?
Two consistency trends pulling in opposite directions!
RFC-ish things suggest "X-Whatever:".
Mailman practice (the existing "Approved") suggests "Whatever:".
I was assuming I should follow the Mailman convention. (Whether the Mailman convention needs revision is another matter...)
Approved was chosen for compatibility with Majordomo, so there was a long tradition before us. Approve was added because so many people mistyped the original ;).
When blazing our own trails we should be more RFC compliant.
- -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iQCVAwUBRImP03EjvBPtnXfVAQLt6wP/Y/a4OuZ8r8kRm/JSrAh8jFU1d4OhsQ5c l+s4kYYY3QE+IfGC92x+QRe6dVSp9jKEmtB08lA8pR2UvfYgc5xDMoZQ57ZYGyhA f48FwdkOCfmr5MZgpfsbrMiR2fIKrzXx8bT6Bo803Sz07/F1+KbYLAlq3BSe8/4d HP2qqroiZ5o= =zWMz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----