From: Andrew Gierth (andrew@erlenstar.demon.co.uk)
Date: Thu May 09 2002 - 01:10:35 CDT
>>>>> "Charles" == Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
>> There's no operational experience with Injector-Info, and it
>> doesn't serve quite the same purpose as NNTP-Posting-Host is being
>> used for today. It's not going to *hurt* anything technically,
>> but there's also no evidence to indicate that it will actually
>> clean anything up rather than just becoming Yet Another Trace
>> Header that some sites have and some sites don't. It's
>> excessively complex, hard to parse, and doesn't address many of
>> the actual uses of trace headers.
Charles> Actually, I have seen an Injector-Info, correctly used, in
Charles> the wild.
mailgate.org use it, but they also use NNTP-Posting-Host and X-Trace,
so from the point of view of any other site it's just Yet Another
Trace Header.
>> application/news-transmission isn't going to win us any friends
>> among most moderators.
Charles> For non-MIME-aware reading agents, it will be
Charles> indistinguishable from present practice.
no, it won't, because present practice is (for better or worse) not to
encapsulate the article but just to send it as a mail message.
Charles> You yourself have agreed that encapsulation of articles sent
Charles> to moderators is a desirable improvement.
It's desirable from a certain technical perspective, but it's been
consistently unpopular with actual moderators, which I believe is
Russ's point.
>> There is no operational experience with mvgroup apart from an
>> experiment with C News and I'm not aware of a widely used server
>> that's deployed support for this.
Charles> As it now stands, defining mvgroup as an alias for newgroup
Charles> will give a minimally compliant implementation. Obviously,
Charles> deployment (and use) in advance of this standard could not
Charles> happen.
There's nothing stopping anyone from implementing mvgroup, standard or
no standard.
Lots of stuff is in regular use on Usenet without ever having been
written into a standard. You seem to have this misconception that a
standard is somehow a necessary precursor of implementation, which is
simply not the case.
-- Andrew.