From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Sep 21 1999 - 08:45:16 CDT
In <199909201207.OAA12056@beatles.cselt.it> Maurizio Codogno <mau@beatles.cselt.it> writes:
>" >Issues within those sections:
>"
>" >References. There was a little discussion, and I think we should now
>" >reduce the number kept to first plus last 20, and to remove the
>" >suggestion that implementations need to look at the body. There remains
>" >the question of whether trimming the Referemces (when you do a followup)
>" >should be a SHOULD or a MAY. Currently it says SHOULD, but I would be
>" >happier with MAY.
>MAY.
Well, counting myself as MAY, I have 2 votes for MAY and 2 votes for
SHOULD, so it stays as SHOULD until I hear otherwise. But I have reduced
the 31 to 21, reduced the "first 6" nonsense to "first", and removed that
paragraph asking you to search the body. So it now reads:
"Followup agents SHOULD NOT trim message identifiers out of a References
header unless the number of message identifiers exceeds 21, in which case
message identifiers SHOULD be trimmed until there are only 21.
Trimming SHOULD be done by removing any incomplete or otherwise broken
message identifiers, and then sufficient identifiers starting with the
second so as to bring the total down to 21. If Followup Agents trim any
message identifier out of the References-content, then they MUST leave the
first and the last nine message identifiers."
^^^^
But I still don't understand that 'nine'. Surely it should be 'twenty' -
or rather the whole sentence should be omitted..
>" >More importantly, do you want me to say that "Subject: cmsg blah" is for
>" >information only and MUST NOT be used to instigate control action on its
>" >own.
>yessir.
Right. I have written:
"NOTE: The presence of a Subject header starting with the string "cmsg "
and followed by a Control-content MUST NOT be construed, in the absence of
a proper Control header, as a request to perform that control action (as
may have occurred in some legacy software). See also section 5.?."
>" >Approved. There is mention of strengthening this. Should this wait until
>" >we have dealt with authentication matters?
>Please, let's not try to strengthen it now. IESG will complain a lot
>because of security items, so if we change the syntax we should end up
>with a sound specification, and this will block the whole process.
>I would like to have a separate draft dealing with it.
I had no intention to change the syntax, but rather to be more insistent
that it had to have some resemblance to the true sender/originator of the
article (i.e. to outlaw "Approved: foo"). Again, it is allowed to have
several addresses in there, so we could insist on a separate entry for
each moderator involved. Again, there should never be any excuse
whatsoever for this header to be "forged" as is sometimes necessary for
the From header.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5