From: Ralph Babel (rbabel@babylon.pfm-mainz.de)
Date: Sun Mar 19 2000 - 15:33:23 CST
[optional "From:" header]
Brad Templeton wrote:
> you are correct to the extent that a USENET without
> a From header is technically possible. As is one
> without a Subject header.
Sure. "Subject:" is optional in RFC 822,
so why should it be mandatory in news?
> One could even say the Newsgroups header would
> be optional, placing such articles in a virtual
> newsgroup similar to junk.
Hm ... I'm not convinced. This doesn't scale.
> You don't even strictly need the path header,
> it just makes feeding more efficient.
Efficiency _is_ an issue according to RFC 2119, though.
> You don't even need a message-id, since an MD5 would
> technically function just as well as long as the varying
> path line is gone, so long as you had a rule of
> invariance.
Actually, that's not a bad idea. It would
also eliminate certain types of duplicates.
> The date header's only technical function is to allow
> you to not have to keep message-ids forever, and to
> sort articles based on date.
Doesn't seem essential to me. Could be considered
an efficiency issue according to RFC 2119, though.
> Forums where most everybody is anonymous have their
> role in certain areas (discussing tabu subjects, health
> problems etc.) but outside of that they very quickly
> become tiring.
No one is _forcing_ anyone _not_ to use an optional "From:"
header. If people find it useful, they'll probably make use
of it. _I_ certainly would. If others don't, well, then so
be it.