Issues outstanding

[John Stanley <stanley@xxxxxxxx>]

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>4.  Terminology for followups.

>1. A followup is a response, and MUST have a References header. A part of
>   a multi-part FAQ (or anything similar) is not a followup, but it MAY
>   nevertheless have a References header.

No. Non-followups MUST NOT have a References header. That is the ONLY way 
to determine what is and is not a followup. That is the purpose of the 
References header. This is the position our draft (and precursors) have 
had for years.

But I note that the section of the draft which used to state that
References was mandatory for a followup and prohibited in a non-followup
has dissappeared. I find it in neither usefor or usepro. All I see is a
reference to RFC2822, which says that References SHOULD be used in a
reply. It is no longer mandatory in a reply.

When did we decide that References weren't mandatory in followups? Why did 
this text, which has been in the draft for years, get removed? 

>It has been established that there is no technical difference between
>these formulations. 

That is untrue. It has been established that using (1) does not allow 
anyone to determine if an article is a followup or not, while (2) does.
However, (2) now puts an extraneous requirement on the header, which does 
not match up with the actual definition of the header in our draft.

There are, of course, other issues outstanding, but since Charles doesn't 
want to talk about them, they weren't listed.

5. "Poster" is "author and sender". Nope, just "sender".

6. Outgoing gateways ought to mess with the bodies of a message "to 
prevent loops". Nope.

7. "By email" being the only method permitted to get articles to a 
moderator. Nope.

8. The implied ability of injecting agents to detect valid email addresses 
for a poster. Amazing.

9. "Taken" vs. "Copied" re. Followup agents, plus defaulted "by default" 
actions. Redundant/redefinition & unrequested/unilateral change.

10. Duties of a Reading Agent which we have no business assigning duties 
to, and which we actually DON'T assign duties to, despite a section of the 
draft with that title pretending to assign them.