From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Sep 21 1999 - 09:38:23 CDT
In <ylg109bn8k.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>> 5.4. Subject
>> The Subject header contains a short string identifying the topic of
>> the message. This is an inheritable header (see ...) to be copied
>> into the Subject header of any followup, in which case the new
>> header-content SHOULD then start with the string "Re: " (a "back
>> reference") followed by the contents of the pure-subject of the
>> precursor.
>... but is
>there any way of making that clearer? Perhaps saying that "the new
>header-content SHOULD default to the string "Re: " ..."?
Yes, I did that.
>> The Newsgroups header's content specifies which newsgroup(s) the
>> article is posted to. It is an inheritable header (see ...) which
>> SHOULD be copied into the Newsgroups header of any followup, unless
>> a Followup-To header is present to prescribe otherwise.
>Same comment.
Done.
>> Posters SHOULD use only the names of existing newsgroups in the
>> Newsgroups header. However, it is legitimate to cross-post to
>> newsgroup(s) which do not exist on the posting agent's host,
>> provided that at least one of the newsgroups DOES exist there, and
>> followup agents MUST accept this (posting agents MAY accept it, but
>> SHOULD at least alert the poster to the situation and request
>> confirmation).
>Remind me why this is a MUST rather than a SHOULD?
I think the point is that, in a followup, it will be common for you to be
posting to a whole batch of groups you have never heard of (over and above
the one you think you are replying in). So you don't want your newsreader
to be confusing you with unnecessary warnings, and you certainly don't
want it to refuse to post the article point-blank. The MUST disallows the
point-blank refusal.
In the case of the posting of a brand-new article, it is much less clear
that your system should not refuse it point-blank, hence the MAY refuse
and SHOULD warn.
>> 5.6.2. Adding a path-identity to the Path header
>[...]
>> The path-identity added MUST be unique to that agent. To this end
>> it SHOULD be one of:
>I agree with other comments that a MUST would work here for me instead of
>a SHOULD. We've fully enumerated the cases.
Can we be sure of that? The "MUST be unique" is enough to prevent actual
harm. The SHOULD just provides additional convenience.
>> 1. A fully qualified domain name (FQDN) associated (by the Internet
>> DNS service [RFC 1034]) with an A record, which SHOULD identify
>> the actual machine prepending this path-identity. Ideally, this
>> FQDN should also be "mailable" in the sense that it enables the
>> construction of a valid E-mail address of the form
>> "usenet@<FQDN>" or "news@<FQDN>" [RFC 2142] whereby the
>> administrators of that agent may be reached.
>I'd support upgrading that "ideally" to a SHOULD, but don't feel strongly
>enough about it to argue it at length.
Hmmm! We discussed this before. A large site that has lots of machines to
do its actual relaying may not want to burden them all with mail software,
nor to keep having to increase its list of MX records every time it
installs a new one. I think we were agreed that the ability to identify
the actual relaying machine was more important than the ability to mail
its owner (note that a concerned newsadmin can probably work out a likely
email address given the A record of the machine). BUT observe that we are
MUCH more stringent (and rightly so) for injecting machines, where the
requirement to mail to the administrator is much stronger.
>> 5.6.5. Suggested Verification Methods
>I still think this is a bit extended and better put into a companion
>informational RFC for people writing news software, but I think I've said
>more than my share on the topic and won't go into it again.
I think this section is now much shorter than it was. I think I would
prefer to hear suggestions for further pruning that for it to be removed
to a separate document.
-- 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