On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 8 June 2006 16:54:40 +0100 David Lee <t.d.lee@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 8 June 2006 12:39:22 +0100 David Lee <t.d.lee@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
The incoming email would carry a header (of first line in body) of something like: Authorised: sender-pw
where "sender-pw" is associated with the (claimed) From-address. This is different from, but complementary to, "Approved: list-pw".
That's neither approval nor authorisation, it's authentication - proving that the person who used the email address also knew the password associated with it. [...]
Thanks, Ian. I agree with that technical view. That suggests that the header (of first line of body) would need to be something like: Authenticated: sender-pw
To the average non-techie managerial type, what terminology (Authorised? Authenticated? etc.) is preferable?
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!
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...)
--
: David Lee I.T. Service : : Senior Systems Programmer Computer Centre : : Durham University : : http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.d.lee/ South Road : : Durham DH1 3LE : : Phone: +44 191 334 2752 U.K. :