Subject: Usefor/usepro conflicts.

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:15:50 -0700 (PDT)

Bravo to USEFOR for having reached the correct style and length.

Boo to USEPRO for contradicting USEFOR.

USEPRO: redefines the term "sender" from what RFC2822 says, although the
Sender header is supposed to be identical to that from RFC2822. There is
no reason to define 'sender' in our draft. 

USEPRO: claims that "poster" is synonymous with RFC2822 "author", which
it is not. "Poster" in USEPRO says "composes and submits", while RFC2822
limits "author" to the composer and clearly delineates between "author"
and "sender". If we want to use "poster" as a synonym, fine, but to call
it a synonym when it is not is incorrect. The word in standard usage
implies "the person who posts", which is different than "the person who
writes", so as a synonym, it belongs to "sender". This matches the actions 
of a "posting agent", and references in the drafts to the assistance 
posting agents give in posting the article (presumably given to the 
poster).

This points out a contradiction in 7.5:

   Posting agents meant for use by ordinary posters SHOULD reject any
   attempt to post an article which cancels or Supersedes another
   article of which the poster is not the author.

Using RFC2822's example, if John asks Michael to cancel the article he
had Michael post, our posting agent is being told it SHOULD reject
that action, since the poster (Michael) is not the author (John). This 
same section would have the operator of an incoming gateway unable to 
cancel articles from his gateway.

USEFOR tells us that "Compliant software MUST support headers of at least
998 octets." USEPRO tells us "[relaying agents] MUST NOT refold any header
(i.e. they must pass on the folding as received), even to remove FWS from
a Newsgroups-header;". What does a relaying agent which has been written
to support the minimum do when given an article by an agent written to
support more than the minimum, and it has? I.e., A gives B an article with
a header line of more than 998 octets? Both A and B are prohibited from
refolding it. Does it get truncated or discarded? Would it be better to 
specify a maximum that is supported, so that everyone can know ahead of 
time what that maximum is and follow it?

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:43:48 -0700

> Bravo to USEFOR for having reached the correct style and length.

I'd like to second this, btw, since I've not yet said this in public.  The
current USEFOR draft is exactly the sort of document that I feel we've
needed all along, and I'm delighted to see it.  This will be a valuable
and helpful contribution to Usenet going forward.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:49:07 -0700

> writes", so as a synonym, it belongs to "sender". This matches the
> actions of a "posting agent", and references in the drafts to the
> assistance posting agents give in posting the article (presumably given
> to the poster).

This makes sense to me.  I think "poster" should in practice be used as a
synonym for "sender" (and in fact we may not need the term at all; we
could just use "sender" with the same definition as RFC 2822).

> had Michael post, our posting agent is being told it SHOULD reject that
> action, since the poster (Michael) is not the author (John). This same
> section would have the operator of an incoming gateway unable to cancel
> articles from his gateway.

Yes, I believe the last clause should instead be something more like
"which cancels or Supersedes an article from a different poster."

> USEFOR tells us that "Compliant software MUST support headers of at
> least 998 octets." USEPRO tells us "[relaying agents] MUST NOT refold
> any header (i.e. they must pass on the folding as received), even to
> remove FWS from a Newsgroups-header;". What does a relaying agent which
> has been written to support the minimum do when given an article by an
> agent written to support more than the minimum, and it has? I.e., A
> gives B an article with a header line of more than 998 octets? Both A
> and B are prohibited from refolding it. Does it get truncated or
> discarded?

It would have to be discarded (in other words, the article would be
rejected by that agent), as truncation is also modification of the
article.

> Would it be better to specify a maximum that is supported, so that
> everyone can know ahead of time what that maximum is and follow it?

The supported maximum SHOULD be unlimited, but I'm not sure that we can
flatly require that.  Site policy on maximum article length will, of
course, put a practical limit on header size, but it's hard to clearly
state that in the standard.  I don't believe it makes sense to specify any
magic number other than 998.

This is probably a situation where a posting agent SHOULD ensure that it
generates no headers longer than 998 octets for maximum propagation.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:57:53 GMT

>no reason to define 'sender' in our draft. 

Currently, USEPRO is gathering together all the definitions that may be
needed in both documents. When things have settled down, we will check
which terms are still being used and which document (or even both) the
definition belongs in.

Your point about "sender" is noted.

>and "sender".

OK, I now have:

   A "poster" is the person or software that composes a possibly
   compliant article for submission to a posting agent. The poster is
   synonymous with [RFC 2822]'s author.

> The word in standard usage
>writes", so as a synonym, it belongs to "sender".

But the term as widely used throughout Usenet is as I have defined it.

>   article of which the poster is not the author.

OK, I now have:

   Posting agents meant for use by ordinary posters SHOULD reject any
   attempt to post an article which cancels or Supersedes another
   article of which the poster is not the author or sender.

>998 octets."

I think it needs to say that it MUST NOT generate longer than that, but
MAY accept more. I shall look into that.

-- 
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: [email-masked]      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

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:37:09 -0700

>> it is not. "Poster" in USEPRO says "composes and submits", while
>> RFC2822 limits "author" to the composer and clearly delineates between
>> "author" and "sender".

>    synonymous with [RFC 2822]'s author.

I believe this is wrong.  Poster is synonymous with sender.

>> The word in standard usage implies "the person who posts", which is
>> different than "the person who writes", so as a synonym, it belongs to
>> "sender".

> But the term as widely used throughout Usenet is as I have defined it.

I strongly disagree.  Everywhere that I've seen poster used on Usenet in a
context that drew the distinction between author and transmitter, poster
referred to the person who injected the article, not the author.

>    article of which the poster is not the author or sender.

That works.

---

From: Sebastian Brocks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:43:29 +0200

And now for the whole mailinglist (sorry Russ)

> referred to the person who injected the article, not the author.

In the case of "Followup-to: poster", certainly the author is meant, not
the person who injected the article, isn't it?

greetings, Sebastian

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:48:41 -0700

> And now for the whole mailinglist (sorry Russ)

No problem.

>> I strongly disagree.  Everywhere that I've seen poster used on Usenet
>> in a context that drew the distinction between author and transmitter,
>> poster referred to the person who injected the article, not the author.

> the person who injected the article, isn't it?

Yeah, that's a very good point.  That would indeed be an exception.
(Well, more precisely speaking, the person in the From header is what's
meant, but per RFC 2822 that should be the author, not the sender.)