From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Wed Aug 11 2004 - 11:48:06 CDT
Seth Breidbart (sethb@panix.com):
>What is this "starts out" stuff?
Ummm, is there something to this question besides the obvious? "Starts
out" means "begins".
>Is there really a difference between
>a followup agent that starts by creating an empty file (clearly, with
>no References header) and then appends stuff to it that includes the
>References header, and one that starts by creating a file with the
>References header already in it?
When the definition of something is based on what it contains, yes. When
the definition is based on what its purpose is, no.
>We (should) care about the format of the (proto-)article, not the
>process of generating it.
By defining what kind of article it is based on what it contains, we care
about the process.
>If I save an article to a temp file, then use a posting (not followup)
>agent, and insert that article as quoted, with an appropriate
>References header, etc., then is my article a followup?
Wouldn't it be nice if this kind of question didn't need to be asked? As
in, what FUNCTION does the article perform and not just what headers are
found in it (or not, as the case may be)?
>Well, it isn't a followup until I added it,
And there is no reason to add it because it isn't a followup.
>> The only thing contrary to fact is the ridiculous suggestion that we
>> define a followup not by what function is serves but by what header
>> it contains.
>A suggestion cannot be contrary to fact. Neither can a definition.
Oh please. Try defining "apple" to be "an eight-legged member of the
arachnid family" and see if someone doesn't tell you you've got your facts
mixed up.
Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk):
>But followup agents (at least the ones whose duties are set out in our
>present draft, and will continue to be set out in USEPRO) are not involved
>in the generation of multipart FAQs
Says who? Sorry, I didn't get the memo from you prohibiting this use of
followup agents for this. When was it sent?
It is trivial to use a followup agent to post multi-part FAQs, and there
is no reason not to. Were I posting a two-part FAQ, I can easily forsee
the use of a followup agent to post the second part, just so I don't have
to care about cutting and pasting the message id into a References header.
Post part 1, then followup with part 2. Trn even makes it easy. By using
the "f" command (which does not include previous text) and then supplying
a file to be included, I've just used a followup agent to post the second
(and any following parts) of a multi-part FAQ.
>Which, to me, is a good argument for not regarding later parts of a FAQ as
>"followups",
Yes, you are still stuck on this idea that followups are defined as "what
a followup agent produces" and not by the function in life that they
serve.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net):
>>You have a penchant for stating the obvious non-sequitor. We aren't
>>talking about the precursor.
>Then what is this "starts out whith" of which you prate?
I have to define "starts with" for YOU, too? See above. It doesn't mean
"precursor".
>It "starts out" with whatever is in the protoarticle.
That's utter nonsense. Read the duties of a followup agent section again.
It starts with NOTHING, and is requied to "take from" all sorts of things.
It "takes" the newsgroups header, it "takes" the subject, etc. If those
were already in the article, there would be no need to "take" them from
anything else.
>If the
>protoarticle contains a References header line then the article will
>be a followup.
That's just ridiculous, on two levels. First, the followup agent starts
with an article that is empty -- no References header. Thus, according to
the proposed definition, the article is not a followup. Second, whether or
not it starts with a References header, the poster is free to remove any
such header from the article prior to posting, so your contention that the
protoarticle starts with a References header does not mean it will be a
followup.
>Your claim of circularity is contrary to fact.
Right. 'k. Sure.
>>it is a better definition than the proposed circular one.
>There is no proposed circular definition.
Your statement is contrary to fact.