From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Sun Jun 27 2004 - 15:43:19 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> 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).
If the shoe fits, ... There exist standards for reasoned debate; shouting
"we can do whatever we want" is not part of that, and *is* infantile.
>>>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.
There are proposals that require parsing the field as structured, which is
in direct opposition to the definition of the field as unstructured.
>>>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"?
It does not appear to have been a problem (w.r.t. the exact same text in RFC
822) for the authors of RFCs 850 & 1036, for the VPIM folks, for the EDI folks,
for the IMAP folks, ...
>>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.
That is specified in RFCs 850 and 1036, which adopted the RFC 822 format
in preference to A news format.
One could, I suppose, develop *a* different text message format (and there
is work underway to do so), but RFC 2822 is *the* existing, widely used
format. There was RFC 841 and its predecessor, but I not know of any
modern system that uses that specific format.
>> 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".
Perhaps the Chair needs to make a clarification here...
>>>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).
Ad-hominem attacks will get you nowhere.
>>" 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.
So in your opinion, common UAs such as Mozilla, Netscape, Outlook Express,
etc. simply do not exist!?! It is precisely such a class of "Existing tools"
which "include implementations of both mail and news" that RFCs 850 and 1036
referred to. Ditto for IMAP.
.
> Exactly so. Which is at complete odds with your oft-repeated claim that
> anything in RFC 822 automatically supersedes anything to the contrary,
I have never made any such claim. I have stated exactly what RFCs 850 and
1036 explicitly state; that in the event of conflict, RFC 822 has precedence,
and RFCs 850 and 1036 are deemed to be in error.
>> 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.
No, according to RFC 2822 and MIME, the unstructured Subject field is
meant for human consumption, and explicitly permits (and RFC 2277 strongly
encourages as BCP) use of RFC 2047 encoding to specify the language and
character set of text contained therein. Explicit provisions in the draft
for excluding use of RFC 204677 encoding, for treating text as case-sensitive
keywords as if the field were structured are inconsistent with processing
according to RFC 2822 and MIME.
>> 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.
Bull. You have excluded it so that you could attempt to wreak havoc upon
the Internet community. And several members of this WG will have none of
that. And a number of others have made it quite plain that any product of
this WG that attempts to do so will not pass IESG muster.
>>>>That has also been asked and answered before. For two decades, news
>>>>has
>>>>intentionally used the common message format.
>>>
>>>
>>>No it has not.
My what a convincing technical argument. So substantive. 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
The intent and practice seems perfectly clear; A news format has been
abandoned in preference to RFC 822 format for very good reasons, clearly
elucidated.
>>>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.
Its title says it is a standard, and the first sentence of its text as well
as the first sentence of its "Introduction" section clearly so states.
>>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.
Indeed we do; the real world, much as you cannot bear to admit it, does
include IMAP, MIME and other Standards Track protocols.