From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Tue Jun 10 2003 - 16:32:08 CDT
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Usenet News Support wrote:
> I'm glad you live in a perfect workd, I don't.
"Perfect workd" has nothing to do with this. We design a standard assuming
that software that is interested in following it will do so, and if
software chooses not to, it is not our problem.
> Let's just vote on this, I think the arguments are clean to all but one
> reader,
I think you are wrong, even if you meant yourself as the one.
> and I'm tired of arguements which are repitious restatements of
> "if the world was perfect Re wouldn't be useful"
You've just proven that you are not clear on what the argument is. It has
nothing to do with "useful" or "perfect", but everything to do with
"useful for what purpose and in what software, and is either the source of
an interoperability issue?" The purpose is better served by a different,
mandatory header (which is not confused by user changes to the Subject or
the same subjects in different threads), and "in what software" is "in
USENET-ignorant clients". The former means it does not meet any RFC2119
criterion for normative language, the latter makes it not our problem in
the first place.
I'll point out that RFC2119 does not list "useful" or "imperfect workd" as
a reason for MUST or MUST NOTs.
> interspersed with vulgarities.
If you continue to deliberately misrepresent my position, don't whine when
I use strong language. And I used it once, so your statement about
"repeated" is just another deliberate misrepresentation.
> If there are no better technical arguements than this it's
> time to just vote.
I'd like to see you summarize your "technical arguments" regarding the
need for RFC2119-style mandates. All I've seen is that you have
USENET-ignorant clients and want posting agents to have a mandate that
makes your use of such clients for USENET easier. You mentioned
something about dealing with mangled articles -- which are technically no
longer news standards conformant, and so outside the scope of this group.
I find no support in RFC2119 for such mandates based on those reasons. Did
you intend something different?
Now, your arguments are wonderful were the issue about whether "Re: " is
used at all, but this discussion is not about that, it is about the use of
RFC2119 language and a redefinition of the Subject header from RFC2822.
I've asked, as I recall, why RFC2822 language is not adequate, given that
it already results in nearly-ubiquitous use of Re: (with a few malingerers
using RE: and even RE[2]:, but those mostly in mail), but I've not gotten
an answer. Do you have one? Don't tell my why it's nice or useful, tell me
why it merits RFC2119 language.
And stop emailing me copies of this stuff.