From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Sat Jun 26 2004 - 17:21:07 CDT
In <40DB7D51.7060006@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> Bruce Lilly said:
>>
>>>Henry Spencer wrote:
>>>
>> Yes we have, and you have repeartedly refused to listen to what other
>> members of this list have been saying. That is the reason for the
>> "many times".
>Excuse me, but I have indeed listened, and what I have heard was infantile
>shouts of "we can do whatever we want".
Referring to your oponents in debate as "infantile" is not likely to
endear you to those who will have to make the final decisions. However, if
that is your style, then that is your problem (or your misfortune).
>> Nobody is proposing to alter RFC 2822
>Attempting to redefine the Subject field is exactly an attempt to infringe
>upon RFC 2822 and its cognizant WG. RFC 850 adopted RFC 822 format,
>specifically mentioning use of Subject as defined in 822 as a replacement
>for the erstwhile "Title", and clearly accepting RFC 822 as authoritative.
We have not replaced the Subject field (except that we do not allow the
Subject to be empty). There is nothing that we are proposing to write
regarding "Re: " that will cause the slightest difficulty to any Mail User
Agent.
>> The scope of RFC 2822
>> is clearly set out in its introductory section, which clearly refers
>> to "electronic mail".
>The introduction is not the scope,
The Introduction in question starts with a subsection entitled "scope", so
how can you deny that "The scope of RFC 2822 is clearly set out in its
introductory section"?
> and the text therein mentions a general
>framework under which the format was developed (indeed the very same text
>was in RFC 724, which predates Usenet). The format was explicitly adopted
>by RFCs 850 and 1036, as well as by other applications which use that
>message format.
The text therein says it 'specifies a [not the] syntax for text messages
... within the framework of "electronic mail" ...'. No mention of its
applicability to other frameworks such as Netnews.
>> Therefore, it is not binding upon us,
>Our charter is binding, and that charter calls for a successor to RFC 1036,
>which explicitly and clearly states that RFC 822 is definitive.
There is no requirement for the revision to preserve everything that was
defined in RFC 1036. Our prime duty is to preserve compatibility with
current practice, and current practice departs widely from RFC 1036.
> Moreover,
>we are bound by direction from the WG Chair, and last year our Chair specifically
>stated that our work was to be based on RFC 2822 and MIME.
Our work IS based on RFC 2822 and MIME. "Based on" does not mean
"identical to".
>>>... issues arising out of RFCs 850 and 1036, both of which were
>>>quite
>>>clear about the adoption of the common message format and that the
>>>defining
>>>RFC (822 at the time) had precedence in the case of conflicts.
>>
>>
>> No, the wording of RFC 11036 was quite muddled and self contradictory
>> at that point.
>There is noting muddled or self-contradictory about the text (I not in passing
>that once again you have made a claim without one shred of supporting
>evidence):
Those who have had to struggle with the text of RFC 1036 these past 14 years
(and that does not include you AFAIAA) are quite clear that it is both
muddled and self-contradictory (see recent post by Henry).
>" The primary consideration in choosing a message format is that it
> fit in with existing tools as well as possible. Existing tools
> include implementations of both mail and news.
A high ideal, but in the real world of that time it never worked out like
that. The existing tools upon which Usenet runs do not implement RFC 1036.
We have to live with that, and that is what this WG has been trying to do.
> .... Therefore, the rule is adopted that
> all USENET news messages must be formatted as valid Internet mail
> messages, according to the Internet standard RFC-822.
Yes, that is true, and it is true of our present draft. But the converse
was not true then, and it is not true now.
> The USENET
> News standard is more restrictive than the Internet standard,
> placing additional requirements on each message and forbidding use
> of certain Internet features.
Exactly so. Which is at complete odds with your oft-repeated claim that
anything in RFC 822 automatically supersedes anything to the contrary,
even when explicitly stated to be so in RFC 1036. Indeed, the clash
between the sentence above and the oft-quoted "In any situation where this
standard conflicts ..." is a perfect example of the muddled and
self-contradictory nature of RFC 1036.
> However, it should always be possible
> to use a tool expecting an Internet message to process a news
> message.
But again, not the converse. And again, that is true of our draft vs RFC
2822. The format we define for news articles is a proper subset of the
messages defined by RFC 2822.
> In any situation where this standard conflicts with the
> Internet standard, RFC-822 should be considered correct and this
> standard in error.
And having seen the chaos wreaked by that sentence, we took good care not
to include it in our draft.
>>>That has also been asked and answered before. For two decades, news
>>>has
>>>intentionally used the common message format.
>>
>>
>> No it has not.
>See the text quoted above -- it is quite clear that the message format
>has been adopted, and the reasons are clearly stated.
No, it is not even clear from that text (a subset, yes, but not the whole
of it). But in any case, what has been adopted is not even what RFC 1036
appeared to intend.
>> So forget RFC 1036. It is dead. We are writing its succcessor.
>According to the RFC index, it is still in effect.
But it is not, and was not intended to be, a standard. And it will be
obsoleted by our document.
>>>The "news format is not an instance of the message format" and "we can
>>>make any damned changes to any standards we please" horses have long
>>>been
>>>dead. Please stop flogging them.
>>
>>
>> No, those horses are very much alive. We are charged with writing the
>> new Netnews standard. We need to follow preceding standards
>> "responsibly", not "blindly".
>Evidently you did not pay attention to what Mark Crispin, Ned Freed, and
>others have told you, and apparently you have not reread their apropos
>remarks even though references to them have been recently provided here.
>It appears that you just don't "get it".
I pay particular attention to those who have experience of making Usenet
work in the real world. We have several such experienced people on this
WG.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5