Subject: ISSUE: content of Approved header

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:15:27 GMT

Issue # requested.

This was discussed earlier, but never resolved.

It is required that a moderator uses an address identifying himself in the
Approved header. For control messages, nothing is said (so you could
legitimately write

   Approved: foobar

which is not particularly helpful. USEFOR says

   The Approved header field indicates the mailing addresses (and
   possibly the full names) of the persons or entities approving the
   article for posting. ...

And the USEPRO wording for moderators ensures that requirement is met. I
want to see the same thing said for group control messages, since senders
of such message clearly have a "duty" to fulfil that USEFOR requirement.

That is not to say the Approved will be identical to the From (one might
be a personal name and the other a role address). But it should certainly
be something that sites considering whether to honour the control message
should be able to look at and expect to find something familiar.

-- 
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: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:25:03 +0100

I want a second for this.

If USEFOR already requires an email address, "Approved: foobar" is already 
prohibited. I don't see a compelling case for making USEPRO say anything 
about which email address to use.

--On 14. februar 2007 15:15 +0000 Charles Lindsey <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> 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: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:13:39 +0100

> I want a second for this.

That's an odd way to track issues by not tracking them.

 From my POV the issue could be be noted as "rejected",
the approved article format standard is clear enough.
Apparently you also think that USEFOR is good enough.

Frank

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:44:16 +0100

As I said in my message of Jan 3:
>> The chairs will enter an issue in the tracker if one or more of the 
>> following things is true: - the chairs agree it is an issue that 
>> needs discussion - one or more persons apart from the person raising 
>> the issue agrees that it is an issue, and says so on the mailing list 
>> ("+1" can be used, but be clear on what you're responding to - +1 on 
>> a refutation is not the same as +1 on the original issue!) The chairs 
>> will not enter an issue in the tracker if: - they don't think it is 
>> an issue - the editor responds with "yes, that's an error, fixed in 
>> my copy" or equivalent before the issue can be tracked, and nobody 
>> else disasgrees with that statement. 
In this particular case, I think Charles is raising issues that make no 
sense to discuss, so I don't want to waste time putting them into the 
tracker, soliciting comments, gauging WG consensus, resolving them and 
sending out mail saying "this issue is resolved". I'm far enough behind 
in following up real issues in my WGs that tracking every one of 
Charles' (IMHO) useless non-issues is simply more pain in the posterior 
than I'm willing to tolerate.

                     Harald

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:01:37 GMT

>about which email address to use.

OK, consider "Approved: foobar.com", which is syntactically allowed but
still discouraged by USEFOR.

USEPRO backs up that discouragement in the case of approvals by
Moderators, but not in the case of group control messages. That seems
inconsistent to me.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:27:50 +0100

Charles Lindsey wrote:
 
> consider "Approved: foobar.com", which is syntactically allowed but

Are we reading the same copy of RFC 2822 ?  The article standard says
<mailbox-list>.  RFC 2822 says that this is one or more <mailbox>, 
and a <mailbox> is either <addr-spec> or <name-addr>.  There's no "@"
in foobar.com, it's a syntax error.

Frank

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:09:29 +0100

> still discouraged by USEFOR.
How does 'foobar.com' match the ABNF?

   approved        =  "Approved:" SP mailbox-list CRLF

                  Harald