From: J.B.Moreno (planb@newsreaders.com)
Date: Wed Mar 03 2004 - 14:46:10 CST
On 3/1/04 3:16 PM, Russ Allbery at <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:
> J B Moreno <planb@newsreaders.com> writes:
>
>> I consider having the article format say that the what is in the Subject
>> is totally irrelevant and the client can do whatever it likes to it
>> because it's unstructured to be just the sort of thing to likely cause
>> problems -- because I see it causing problems everyday.
>
> No one has proposed this.
Actually they have -- both Lily and Stanley have said that we can't tell
clients what to put in the Subject header....
==
On 2/24/04 3:03 PM, John Stanley at <stanley@peak.org> wrote:
> The header is unstructured. It is not "broken" to insert "Monstrosities",
> but it is broken to assume some special meaning when it appears.
==
I.e. if I write a client and decide to advertise my multi-level marketing
scheme in ever Subject sent out, then the users of my newsreader can defend
this practice on the basis that it is 100% compatible with the news
standard.
==
On 2/26/04 9:25 AM, Bruce Lilly at <blilly@erols.com> wrote:
> Charles Lindsey wrote:
>
> [...]
>> it is clear that inserting anything
>> else is "broken".
>
> No. What is clear is that there is some disagreement about that. No
> convincing argument has yet been made to support the assertion that
> insertion of anything else is "broken" in any meaningful sense.
==
Same thing, different words -- we have no right to tell clients what they
should be putting in the Subject. If they randomly choose a back reference,
then that's fine -- we can't and shouldn't forbid it.
>> Trying to make them exactly the same isn't the solution to the problem
>> of gateway documentation.
>
> No one has proposed this either.
No, but I see that as the trend.
-- J.B. Moreno