From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 27 2000 - 05:05:06 CDT
In <ylem26frog.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
>> The reasons for allowing an address are to allow the poster to specify a
>> special address as a destination for copies of posted replies and to
>> allow people posting with an invalid address to specify a valid address
>> to which to send a Cc. Only one address is allowed, so as to limit the
>> potential for abuse.
>> I am not totally convinced, especially about the "abuse" bit.]
>Neither am I, but I also don't think anything of interest is gained by
>making it From-content. Reply-To has way more abuse potential than this
>does, though (think test autoresponders and the like), and since we have
>no intention of fixing that, I don't see this as much of an issue.
Noted.
>Yes, but I think that should be "followup agents MAY observe them." I
>don't think it's a good idea to put SHOULDs in notes, and I don't think
>it's a good idea to require at the SHOULD level recognition of something
>that was never standardized and never will be standardized. The MUST NOT
>in this note isn't actually a separate requirement, just a reiteration of
>what the BNF says, since mailbox doesn't allow "never" or "always".
Done.
>> [MUST/SHOULD/Ought? This hardly causes interoperability problems.
>> Perhaps that sentence is not needed at all. Opinions?]
>I vote for just dropping that sentence; I think the important idea there
>is implicit in the requirement for an explicit override.
Noted.
>"The copy, if sent, MUST..." just as a picky wording change; otherwise, I
>had to read it again to be sure of whether the e-mailed copy was a SHOULD
>or a MUST.
Done.
>> [There is a suggestion that it should be allowed to include a Posted-
>> And-Mailed in the body instead of that header. But I do not like
>> specifying what body content should contain, and how would I interpret
>> such a possibility if the body were a Mime multipart?]
>Agreed. I'm not in favor of that suggestion.
Noted.
>> If this header is absent, a followup agent MUST NOT automatically
>> email a copy of the followup article, but the user MAY do so at his
>> discretion.
>Perhaps add a parenthetical here "(such as by using a different command
>than the default followup command)"? Or maybe not; not sure if the
>clarification would be useful.
It now says
"but the user MAY do so manually, at his discretion."
>> 6.2. Posted-And-Mailed
>> Posted-And-Mailed-content = "yes" / "no"
>If we're going to say that, then I'd rather see a Posted-To header that
>lists the newsgroups to which the message was posted, since that provides
>some additional useful information (and is already generated by some
>clients, so there's existing practice). But I don't have any really
>strong opinions about this whole area and have been fairly burned out on
>arguing about it.
Eh? Surely the Newsgroups header is there to do that. We have already said
that the Newsgroups header MAY be used to mean "this email was also posted
in these places", so that should now be the preferred method. The whole
point about the Posted-And-Mailed header is that it appears in BOTH
versions.
-- 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