From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Thu Jul 01 2004 - 21:36:52 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <40E0E9C1.7010503@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
>
>>>>It has already been put in the form of a definite proposal. Which you have
>>>>ignored.
>>>
>>>
>>>URL or message-id please.
>
>
>>I'll do better -- several header fields, including Message-ID:
>
>
>>Message-ID: <40CB2E3E.4000809@erols.com>
>
>
>
>>And the body text giving the specific proposal:
>
>
>>-------------------------------
>>That might lead to a revised definition of followup, viz.
>> A followup is an article that contains either an In-Reply-To or a References
>> field. No article which is not a followup may contain either an In-Reply-To
>> or a References field.
>>-------------------------------
>
>
> That is just a small paragraph in a long argument you were having with
> Eivind.
Charles, you really need to stop misrepresenting people -- it was not "a long
argument"; it was in fact not an argument at all, indeed the first sentence
was "I agree.".
> But the first thing you have to decide is whether In-Reply-To is a
> bona-fide Netnews field, or simply a non-news field that occasionally
> turns up. If the former, then you have to say when and whether it is to be
> generated
Done, which you would have noticed if you had in fact read the message
referenced, which was a call to use the same semantics as RFC 2822, and
referenced the relevant RFC 2822 text.
> To introduce such a major new feature at this stage, when we are supposed
> to be tidying up our drafts rather than embarking on new work, would
> require a substantial consensus from this WG.
We already have agreement that the goal is towards convergence with RFC 2822.