>
> On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 10:26, Ryan Cartwright wrote:
> > If that is the case then I would have thought stripping/masking the
> > name/address would be sufficient.
>
> That probably is quite enough, except its a little more complex than
> that:-
>
> - Masking header addresses is no problem (well its easier than
> the other things)
>
> - Howabout quoted addresses? You can't just strip them
> completely - a reply to a query stating that discussions
> of this problem can be found on the xxx-list at (address)
> are going to be a pain if the information has been masked
>
> - The exim list gets log fragments to it containing email
> addressing information - masking that could make the logs
> rather less than useful :-)
>
> - I think a compromise is to just mask email addresses,
> where they are defined as text@text or similar, not
> cover real names, and live with the fact that quoted
> reference lines, message ids and logs will be damaged
> too...
>
> Nigel.
Surely you'd only need to strip the name/address of the the person complaining.
Its useful to know who has posted what. Even email addresses are useful
as they can be used to prioritise (or automatically bin) posts from
particular individuals.
Changing what people post by masking any of it would presumably
require theit consent anyway to comply with relevant legislation :-)
