Subject: Re: Differences between RFC 2822 and Usefor (fwd)

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:35:02 -0700 (PDT)

Richard Clayton <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>the readers of Usenet believe in things like threads and followups; they
>like the ability to split a series of rambling conversations into
>disparate piles of articles and understand each of those piles one at a
>time...

If you read USENET for any length of time, you will find that readers (at 
least posters) of USENET believe in all kinds of oddball things. Does 
their belief in something elevate that thing into an interoperability 
issue, or even something that we need to deal with? 

>However, there seems to be an argument being presented that when you
>look deeply at the specifications the notion of followups and threads is
>mainly an illusion fostered by the reading tools and one can lawfully
>miss out all the headers that allow the illusion to be constructed.

I'm trying to understand what you are saying here, but it is couched in
such odd language that I'm not certain. "Lawfully miss out?" If I get what 
you are saying, then yes, of course we can refuse to mandate a header that 
allows illusions to be propogated. In fact, propogating illusions is not 
the job of a technical standard.

However, if you are trying to argue that "followup" is an important 
concept, and detecting such is an important action, then ok, maybe it is. 
Does it reach the level of importance that it is an interoperability 
issue? Will newsreaders break if they get an article without a References 
header? Does it truly merit a MUST, or is it only worth a SHOULD?

>So it seems to me that this is a genuine inter-operability issue --

And yet, not a single thing you mentioned is interoperability. In fact, 
right now, news readers MUST deal with articles that do not have a 
References header. An article without a References header CANNOT be an 
interoperability issue, since the system would be collapsing today.

>The issue occurs at the level at which the readers view the newsgroups. 

One newsreader dealing with one article for one reader is hardly an 
interoperability issue. What you've just described is a display issue, and 
we do not deal with display issues. Readers are free to display articles 
as they see fit.

>For that reason I think
>that a standardised way of expressing which pile an article belongs in
>is of very significant value.

That may be true. Since we are not undefining the References header, 
we are not removing the 'standardized way of expressing' anything. It's 
just been made optional. 

>Yes at present some software is a bit
>flaky, but that doesn't mean we should fail to say what should be done.

We already say what should be done. What change do you want made?

>sounds like a cock-up :(

Sounds like a decision and the natural consequences of that decision.

>so best fix it then!  ASAP!!

Best determine that it is broken before demanding it be fixed. This group 
has been working for a long time; have you read the history of this 
discussion before telling us something we have done is broken?

>ah....   perhaps I could find it earlier in the "thread" ? 

It isn't hard. It doesn't even require a References header, which is, by 
the way, optional in mail, and requires knowledge of the precursor message 
ids in any case. When the precursor message id is not known, it is 
improper to fabricate one.

---

From: Richard Clayton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:46:37 +0100

In message <[email-masked]>, John
Stanley <[email-masked]> writes

>issue? 

in my view yes

>Will newsreaders break if they get an article without a References 
>header? 

one article they will cope with -- and their heuristics may mean that
they function as if the header had been present -- but if no articles
have References then they will fail to function as their users currently
expect. I call that broken, and so will they.

>Does it truly merit a MUST, or is it only worth a SHOULD?

it should be a MUST

>And yet, not a single thing you mentioned is interoperability. 

I suspect that's because you're thinking about servers and not about the
people who read Usenet and the software that they use for that. I gave
some examples of how that causes problems earlier

>We already say what should be done. What change do you want made?

I believe that References:  should be compulsory, and that all the other
clues we currently have like "Re:", the unmangled subject, a later
datestamp, and "In article xxx so-and-so said" can be made optional (or
in the interests of tidyness abandoned altogether)

>discussion before telling us something we have done is broken?

oh yes, I've read a lot ... all the way down the years :( ...  however,
now it's clear that there's the prospect of (a) the effort finishing
(one way or another) and (b) posters being permitted to break
"threading" (and if there is no language to compel them, then they will)
then it is time to speak up

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.         Benjamin Franklin

---

From: Seth Breidbart <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:50:27 -0400 (EDT)

John Stanley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> concept, and detecting such is an important action, then ok, maybe
> it is.  Does it reach the level of importance that it is an
> interoperability issue? Will newsreaders break if they get an
> article without a References header? Does it truly merit a MUST, or
> is it only worth a SHOULD?

Define "break".  If you mean "crash and burn and let the magic smoke
out of the computer" then no.  If you mean "Do the wrong thing (from
the viewpoints of both the poster and reader)" then yes.

I'd prefer a MUST but would settle for a SHOULD.

> And yet, not a single thing you mentioned is interoperability. In
> fact, right now, news readers MUST deal with articles that do not
> have a References header. An article without a References header
> CANNOT be an interoperability issue, since the system would be
> collapsing today.

If the system continues to act, but sometimes acts wrongly, it isn't
collapsing.  But whatever is making it act wrongly _is_ an
interoperability issue.

If a random set of Subject header content was changed to "3" the
system wouldn't collapse, either; so why is specifying that some
headers MUST NOT be changed by transit servers an interoperability
issue?  Answer: That's doing _the wrong thing_.

Seth