header field indicating an anonymous address

Marc R. suggests that we standardize on a header field to indicate
that a message was anonymous.

I suggest "Anon-Sender:".  There's already a "Sender:" field in
RFC-822, indicating who sent the message, as separate from who wrote
the message.  The "Anon-Sender:" field should contain an email address
for the maintainer of the remailer. 

Why? To facilitate complaints. :-)

Eric

> I suggest "Anon-Sender:".  There's already a "Sender:" field in
> RFC-822, indicating who sent the message, as separate from who wrote
> the message.  The "Anon-Sender:" field should contain an email address
> for the maintainer of the remailer. 

Anon.penet.fi has supported the Sender: field from the start. This has
forced me to use an automatic script that send a message like this:
(it gets to handle 20-30 messages/day)

I don't think this was intended for me (anon@penet.fi, the anon server
administrator, also working under names "daemon" and "julf"). I suppose you
wanted to send it to an<something>@anon.penet.fi, but accidentally replied to
the envelope "Sender:" address instead of the "From:" orginator address...

	Julf

>>>>> Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu> writes:

	Eric> Marc R. suggests that we standardize on a header field
	Eric> to indicate that a message was anonymous.

	Eric> I suggest "Anon-Sender:".  There's already a "Sender:"
	Eric> field in RFC-822, indicating who sent the message, as
	Eric> separate from who wrote the message.  The "Anon-Sender:"
	Eric> field should contain an email address for the maintainer
	Eric> of the remailer.


I think that's certainly a viable idea. Of course, the Sender: field
is more honored in the breach than the observance by many mailers.
Another thing to remember is "Errors-To:" which can save a lot of
grief when handling bounces. 

	Eric> Why? To facilitate complaints. :-)

It would warm my heart to see questions like this come up at IETF
meetings. Keep up the good work.

--Strat