Re: Oughtification of Section 5

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

From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Jan 26 2001 - 04:27:22 CST


In <200101251853.NAA14307@darkstar.prodigy.com> davidsen@prodigy.com (Bill Davidsen) writes:

> 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.

No, the intention is that Injector-Infor replaces the existing X-Trace,
NNTP-Posting-whatever, and any others that various ISPs like to add
(though we agreed to keep Complaints-To as a separate header).

> 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.

It already says:

NOTE: This header is intended to replace various currently-used but
nowhere-documented headers such as "NNTP-Posting-Host",
"NNTP-Posting-Date" amd "X-Trace". Any of these headers present when an
article arrives SHOULD also be removed as above.

-- 
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: +44 161 436 6131      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


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


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.