From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Mon Feb 18 2002 - 12:13:48 CST
Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se):
>> I don't pretend to speak or write Swedish. Your demand is foolish.
>So you are now saying that were a fool when you remarked on a non-native's
>speaker's grammar error? Good.
No, the posessive "your" means "belonging to you", in this case,
"belonging to Erland." This is very basic english grammar. And my remark
was for you to stop putting words in my mouth, something you seem unable
to refrain from. The fact that you were using incorrect grammar while
doing it was a side issue.
>The part I don't understand is "and the injector decides to change the
>sender header".
This, too, is very simple english. Are you being confused by the
anthropomorphism? Ok, how about "the injector author programmed the
injector to change or insert a Sender header"? Does this remove the
confusion?
>Why would a compliant injecting agent do this?
Ummm, because we have not prohibited it from doing so. Everyone else
here seems to be saying that doing it is current practice, so why would
you expect a compliant injecting agent to stop doing this when it is doing
it now and will not be prohibited from continuing to do it?
>The draft says: "...but SHOULD NOT alter, delete or reorder any headers
>already present in the article, except ..."
Yes, you clearly know what words the draft uses, but do you know what they
mean? As in, do you really know what "SHOULD NOT" means, in RFC terms? I
understand, this is a double whammy for you. Not only is it english, but
it is defined not in the dictionary but in a secret RFC available only to
the select few who know how to find RFC.
>True, this could be strengthened to MUST NOT, but I haven't seen you call
>for this.
You claimed that you weren't reading the argument, so I can understand why
you would say that you haven't seen this. I've been calling ALL ALONG for
an explicit MUST NOT regarding the Sender header. I even provided wording
to that effect that could be inserted in the draft. I'm sorry you missed
it.
>I guess that Seth is using English like me.
Could be. If your version of english says that "modify" doesn't mean
"change", then it certainly isn't standard english, which would mean it
really isn't english at all.
> What this "simple english" with lowercase and all is I don't know,
It is called a language. It is spoken by people who live in the US,
England, and many other places, and is the second language of a large
number of people. It is lower case to differentiate it from the adjective
"English" which refers to the country England. It is the language that we
are allegedly having this discussion in, although if you don't know what
it is, that would explain a lot.
And you will note carefully that I did not waste my time correcting your
capitalization, I just wasted it suggesting that you not put words in my
mouth.
>but judging from your confused understanding of what the draft says,
My confused understanding?
Ok, bud, you show me where a conforming injector is prohibited from doing
what I think it ought not to be doing and I'll let the subject go.
Otherwise, come up with a convincing argument that it should be allowed to
insert or modify a Sender header to support your apparent belief that it
should be allowed to do that.
If you can leave the spelling flames out, that is.