Re: Oughtification of Section 5

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2001 - 12:53:40 CST


On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:39:02 GMT, chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) said:

> In <200101232323.SAA06627@darkstar.prodigy.com> davidsen@prodigy.com (Bill Davidsen) writes:
>
> > To the extent that I agree that we have way too many headers with one
> >item of trace information per line, I support this. I still favor a
> >single trace info header, similar in concept to X_Trace, absent support
> >for that, I am settling for of proposals to avoid adding new header
> >lines which are another kind of trace information.
>
> But that is exactly what Injector-Info is. A cleaned-up X-Trace with a
> clear killfileable syntax and a selection of parameters to suit any ISP
> (with x-parameters if they really CAN'T manage with the provided ones).

  This duplicates the functions of NNTP-Posting-whatever, doesn't seem
to require the minimal function of X-Trace, doesn't require dropping the
NNTP-... if you use Injector-Info. Therefore it's more clutter, not
less.

  Unless I missed the part about dropping NNTP-xxx if you use
Injector-Info. Otherwise it's "more crud you can add to your header"
IMHO.

-- 
   -bill davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
 last possible moment - but no longer"  -me


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.