From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Thu Apr 12 2001 - 18:06:19 CDT
4.2.1. Names and Contents
> Software SHOULD
> NOT attempt to interpret headers not described in this standard or in
> its extensions,
Then why not say that they SHOULD NOT be anything but what is described in
this standard, instead of saying they SHOULD be anything in this standard,
MESSFOR, extensions to those, MIME standard, or X headers?
I.e., you've said in one sentence that you can use X-headers, but in the
next you say software SHOULD NOT interpret them. And you can use MIME
headers, but software SHOULD NOT interpret them.
Sort of a waste of effort, yes?
> On the other hand, posting agents SHOULD NOT generate them
Them what? There is so much stuff between the start of the preceeding
paragraph and the first sentence of this one that "them" is essentially
antecedant-less.
> Header-names are case-insensitive. There is a preferred case
> convention,
Then they are not case-insensitive. If you tell people they should be a
certain way and they don't have to be any certain way in the same
paragraph, they will look at you funny. We've already seen the noise that
this "preferred case" statement causes and the standard isn't even out
yet.
4.2.2.1. mentions "established headers". This is a fifth case not defined
in 4.2.2. anywhere. I'd say that X-No-Archive is established, thus it is
not experimental according to 4.2.2.1.
4.2.2.3. Local Headers "MUST be removed (and replaced as necessary) by
serving agents when received."
Did you mean "can be"? If a server does not care about some header that
is local to some other site, and it does not understand that header, it
should not do anything with it. Or it should be free to keep it if it
likes it.
4.3.1. "traditionally been used is this situation."
4.3.2. ...
> If a poster or posting agent does
> append such a signature to an article, it MUST be preceded with a
> delimiter line containing (only) two hyphens (ASCII 45) followed by
> one SP (ASCII 32).
This is a MUST? Does this meet the requirements of the RFC that defines
how you use MUST? What news systems break if this is not done? If I type
my name at the end of an article, is this a "signature" as defined by this
standard and am I violating it by not jumping through the hoop?
4.6 An Example
The sigdash marking the signature in the example does not have the
trailing space that this draft says it MUST have.
5.4. Subject
> The pure-subject MUST NOT begin with "Re: ".
Does THIS meet the requirements for MUST NOT as outlined in the standard
for MUST NOT? What breaks if a subject begins with Re:? Especially when
this requirement is followed by:
Agents SHOULD NOT depend on nor enforce the use of back references by
followup agents.
> Followup agents MAY remove instances of non-standard back-reference
If it isn't "back-reference" as defined herein, it is not "non-standard
back-reference", it is just text. If you tell agents that they MAY remove
what they think is a back-reference that isn't, you've told them they MAY
mangle the Subject header in any way they want.
5.6.5. Suggested Verification Methods
The following approaches for common transports are suggested in order
to meet a site's verification obligations. They are not required, ...
If they are not required, they are not an obligation.
5.2. From
Be warned also that some injecting agents that have
authentication information may choose to replace the From-
content based upon the authenticated identity.
I know of no possible way for an injecting agent to know that the address
I have entered in the From header is not mine. To even hint that such
information is available will cause injecting agents to try "good enough"
which violates this standard. This paragraph should be removed.