From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Mar 05 2004 - 14:21:11 CST
In <877jy0fozg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes:
>> A followup that fails to contain a References header is also a
>> "compliant article". However, in neither case was the article created by
>> "compliant" means.
>That depends on whether the user intended that message to be a followup to
>that thread. If they did, then the article does not correctly reflect the
>intentions of the user, which would clearly indicate that the software is
>broken.
My remark was made in response to someone who pointed out that even broken
software could produce compliant articles.
>A similar statement can be made about a news client that only starts new
>threads and never posts followups.
Well such an agent would clearly make no claim to be a "followup agent",
so whatever rules we might specify for folowup agents would be
inapplicable to it.
>The important part is to clearly define the syntax and semantics of a
>followup vs. a new post.
Well the syntax and semantics of a followup agent are easily defined. A
proper References-header is required; otherwise the same as a new post.
But the issue which several others on this list regard as only slightly
less important (and you can replace "slightly less" by "equally" for some
of those people) is how the followup relates to the precursor.
>Adding "Re: " is a more subtle issue, so it's quite reasonable to add
>language similar to RFC 2822 to explain to client authors how clients
>normally handle this case.
Agreed. It is the strength of that language which is in dispute.
> But again, this is a case where I believe
>people are overestimating significantly the value of being able to
>specifically declare clients non-compliant. The important part to me is
>to make sure that all the information required to do the right thing is
>present in the standard without contradicting either ourselves or the mail
>standards, and I believe this is quite possible and, indeed, easy to do.
The problem that I face is that there are people on my left who want
weaker language (or even no language at all) whereas there are people on
my right who are determined that stronger language is necessary. As far as
I can tell, by counting heads, there are slightly more people on my right
than on my left. Which makes it rather hard to reach a consensus.
>Those are structured headers, which raises different issues. They're also
>integral to the proper functioning of a protocol function (replying to an
>e-mail message), whereas Subject is used only for display.
Sadly, that is a simplification. Subject-content is in actuality used for
things other than display. We might wish it were not so, but it is.
>That being said, if you want to say "ought by default" instead of "ought",
>I'm not going to argue with that. If you would like to propose language
>that you would prefer for USEFOR or for USAGE, please do so and I'll be
>happy to comment specifically on it. Know in advance, though, that if it
>contains the words SHOULD or MUST, or anything equivalent, in any area
>contradicting the unstructured nature of Subject, I'll object to it.
Yes, it would certainly be possible to write wording that clarified
perceived inadequacies of RFC 2822 without using RFC 2119 language. That
is the easy bit. The hard part is persuading the people on my right to
agree to that.
For the record, my minimal position is:
SHOULD by default take the Subject from the precursor, but MAY prepend
a single "Re:" is none present.
(there is room for detailed trimming, such as whether "Re:" is case
sentitive, and there is room for further explanatory text).
I am not going to change that unless some of the people on my right are
agreeable to it (and I suspect that it is already too weak for some of
them) or else until a Chair is appointed who can resolve the dilemma in
some other way. But if a consensus (or even a majority) for a weaker
wording emerges, then that would be a different matter.
>>> If you're [John Moreno] honestly confused about my position, I would
>>> like to clarify it until you understand it.
>> And Vice Versa? :-(
>Do you believe that I've misunderstood your position or put words in your
>mouth? If so, please do be specific about where you feel that I'm not
>understanding so that we can discuss it.
You need to direct that question at John Moreno. You were implying that if
only you clarified you position sufficiently he would eventually
understand it. I was only pointing out that he could well claim that
sufficient clarification of *his* position might eventually convince you.
And there was a smiley.
-- 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