From: Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se)
Date: Tue Apr 17 2001 - 15:44:36 CDT
John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes:
> That is not what I said. I said it was local because it was defined that
> way. In fact, it is unlikely that site B made the header up at all, much
> less at a whim as you seem to think. It is most likely that someone
> pushing the concept of nocems created it, and defined it as local because
> they thought it would be.
What I am uncertain of is that they can define a header as local all
on their own. This far the answers have not been conclusive. You may
be right. but I am not wholly convinced.
> >If nothing else, no matter whether site C likes this scoring system or
> >not, how could it be able to remove the header, if it does not know that
> >it is defined as local?
>
> If they don't know what the header is, how could they have made the
> decision that they like what it indicates and want to keep it? If you
> don't want to spend the time paying attention to the situation as
> presented, don't spend the time arguing about it.
And if you were not so focused on quarreling with each and everyone
you would have noticed that what I said above is actually support of
your position. Whether site C wants to keep the header or not is not
very interesting, if they are even ignorant of that they are in of
obligation of removing it.
But as for your own example, I think you have made a lapse here.
This might be not what you intend, but I take it that you mean that
this fictious nocem-header has actually been defined as local. But if
so: where is the mistake? In Usefor that defined local headers, or in
the body that defined the nocem-header as local?
> Well, at that point I was talking about your ridiculous statement that I
> should learn Swedish and hang around Swedish newsgroups so I could get a
> taste of the "real world". But yes, in general, I'm talking about cases
> where "not a back-reference" start subject entries. "SV" is not a back
> reference, it is part of the free text that otherwise can appear in a
> Subject. We should not be telling authors that they should be playing
> games with free text when they don't know why it is there.
All your arrogance side, John, we have a real problem over here. Of
course the those problems doesn't hurt you least, so continue to feel
upset about your made-up problems someone wrecking newsgroups.
The language could of course be made stricter to remove the obvious
contractions, something like "strings that are known to erroneously
be used as back-references".
> >However, in some the of the newsgroups I hang around "SV: "
> >and "SV: SV: SV: SV: " etc clearly are due to misbehaving software,
>
> So we should stop it from happening everywhere?
Yeah, that what's MAY means? Get real.
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar@algonet.se