From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net)
Date: Sat Dec 13 2003 - 17:57:04 CST
In <200312122254.hBCMsGT05223@clerew.man.ac.uk>, on 12/12/2003
at 10:54 PM, Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> said:
>These will rarely occur, but users need to be aware of them when they
>do.
Is there any reason to not recommend that a client make all header
fields available to the user on request, even if they are not
displayed by default?
>> c) Reply by e-mail, with "Subject: " and "To: " headers derived
>> appropriately from the original article. (see #5 and #8 below)
Does it say anything about recognizing a .invalid TLD?
>USEAGE 3.1 currently has SHOULD for creating _any_ header.
I would be opposed to weakening that.
>That MUST NOT seems a bit strong ...
If it were in USEFOR I would agree. In USAGE I believe that it is
appropriate. Certainly mailing unwanted copies of Usenet posts is
disruptive.
>> As a direct counterpart to this requirement, the software SHOULD offer
>> the user some means of selecting exactly which part of a Usenet posting
>> she wishes to followup to, and quote only that part initially. (A
>> special case of this is when a user wishes to react to what's in a
>> signature.)
I'd like to see some encouragement for offering the user the ability
to select disjoint blocks of text to quote; one block initially and
additional blocks as he composes his reply.
>> If feasible, the software SHOULD try to guarantee that this address
>> actually belongs to the person using the software, and actually accepts
>> e-mail.
>But this is much more dubious in these days of munged addresses.
With a proper reference to the .invalid TLD it is no longer dubious.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)