Subject: RE: Q&A Doctor Betsy

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 05:03:49 -0700 (PDT)

Tell a friend
Â·
Download latest version

See this email as a webpage

Hello!

Shipped Privately And Discreetly To Your Door!

We want to put a great big grin on your face in 2009. You'll be to rejoice all year.

Unsubscribe
Â·
Lost Password Â·

Account Settings Â·
Help
Â·
Terms of Service
Â·
Privacy

Ottho Heldringstraat 1, 24829 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3ODB20h062611 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:11:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3ODB22X062610; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:11:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (SMTP.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.11.95]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3ODAoO4062577 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:11:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from [192.168.137.24] (cpe-76-180-0-46.buffalo.res.rr.com [76.180.0.46]) (user=murch mech=PLAIN (0 bits)) by smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3ODAlgq015817 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:10:48 -0400
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:10:46 -0400
From: Ken Murchison
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Just got AUTH48 notice for USEPRO
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-Version: 5.5.3.366731, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.0.366912, Antispam-Data: 2009.4.24.125830
X-SMTP-Spam-Clean: 8% (BODY_SIZE_1000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_800_899 0, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED 0, RDNS_POOLED 0, RDNS_RESIDENTIAL 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0, RDNS_SUSP_SPECIFIC 0, TO_NO_NAME 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FRAUD_419_LOC 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MOZILLA_MSGID 0, __RDNS_POOLED_2 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __USER_AGENT 0)
X-SMTP-Spam-Score: 8%
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.60 on 128.2.11.95
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <[email-masked]> Russ Allbery writes:
>
>> Harald Alvestrand writes:
>
>>> I think I like this, but would definitely want other people to take a
>>> look too.
>
>> I agree with rebasing the documents on RFC 5322 and Charles's text looks
>> good to me.
>
> OK, there semms to be something close to Rough Consensus on that. So where
> is Ken Murchison? I have not seen him on this list for a long time, and he
> has not yet appeared on the thread of emails that has been passing
> between myself, the Rfc-Editor, and the various authors.

I'm here. I've been putting out some fires with our campus in Qatar. I
will carve out some time to work on this next week.

--
Kenneth Murchison
Systems Programmer
Carnegie Mellon University

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3MGMmGP064437 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:22:48 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3MGMmae064436; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:22:48 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from v-smtp-auth-relay-5.gradwell.net (v-smtp-auth-relay-5.gradwell.net [79.135.125.99]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3MGMaRJ064415 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:22:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster#pop3*clerew*man*ac^uk) by v-smtp-auth-relay-5.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) id 49ef41dd.6dde.355 for [email-masked]; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:12:13 +0100 (envelope-sender )
Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id n3MGC2dQ009209 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:12:02 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id n3MGC1KF009206 for [email-masked]; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:12:01 +0100 (BST)
To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:25053
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey"
Subject: Re: Just got AUTH48 notice for USEPRO
Message-ID:
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:50:25 GMT
Lines: 25
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

In <[email-masked]> Russ Allbery writes:

>Harald Alvestrand writes:

>> I think I like this, but would definitely want other people to take a
>> look too.

>I agree with rebasing the documents on RFC 5322 and Charles's text looks
>good to me.

OK, there semms to be something close to Rough Consensus on that. So where
is Ken Murchison? I have not seen him on this list for a long time, and he
has not yet appeared on the thread of emails that has been passing
between myself, the Rfc-Editor, and the various authors.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 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

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3M0B5ia094927 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:11:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3M0B5mf094926; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:11:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from smtp5.stanford.edu (smtp5.Stanford.EDU [171.67.219.85]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3M0AsVD094902 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:11:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from smtp5.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 1262D3B6FFA for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.67.225.134]) by smtp5.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E6E3B6FEA for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9FE20E7A19; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
To: Usefor WG
Subject: Re: Headers folding
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]> (Harald Alvestrand's message of "Tue\, 21 Apr 2009 12\:58\:32 +0200")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
References: <[email-masked]>
From: Russ Allbery
Organization: The Eyrie
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:10:53 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Harald Alvestrand writes:

> The syntax above also (and perhaps more importantly) allows UTF-8 in
> headers, something that is illegal in RFC 5322 and USEFOR. You should
> check for conformance with the EAI spec.

Yes, this was done intentionally for NNTP with the understanding that
for the time being articles carried by NNTP will probably have to
satisfy a more restrictive standard that doesn't allow UTF-8. Since
NNTP doesn't, for the most part, care about the contents of the message,
we took this approach so that should UTF-8 be added to a message format
standard in the future, NNTP will hopefully not require revision.

--
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3M09TDN094783 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:09:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3M09Tsn094782; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:09:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.219.83]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3M09Icw094767 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:09:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id CF7A5200578 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:09:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.67.225.134]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACA1D20050A for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2BB31E7A19; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Just got AUTH48 notice for USEPRO
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]> (Harald Alvestrand's message of "Tue\, 21 Apr 2009 12\:51\:17 +0200")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
From: Russ Allbery
Organization: The Eyrie
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:09:15 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Harald Alvestrand writes:

> I think I like this, but would definitely want other people to take a
> look too.

I agree with rebasing the documents on RFC 5322 and Charles's text looks
good to me.

(I'm completely swamped and will probably not be able to get to other
AUTH48 comments or concerns until next weekend at the earliest.)

--
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3LHQvp1068715 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:26:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3LHQvS6068714; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:26:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 27.mail-out.ovh.net (27.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.30.210]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n3LHQtSb068706 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:26:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 14481 invoked by uid 503); 21 Apr 2009 17:59:56 -0000
Received: from b6.ovh.net (HELO mail56.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.56) by 27.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 21 Apr 2009 17:59:56 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 21 Apr 2009 17:26:56 -0000
Received: from aaubervilliers-151-1-59-169.w83-112.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 21 Apr 2009 17:26:54 -0000
Message-ID: <04F11AE925534F49BE25070BE7EDD399@Iulius>
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
References:
In-Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Headers folding
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:24:38 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 134263565746503097
X-Ovh-Remote: 83.112.154.169 (aaubervilliers-151-1-59-169.w83-112.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi Charles,

>> header = header-name ":" [CRLF] SP header-content CRLF
>>
>> Is it a valid header for USEFOR? and for RFC 5322?
>
> I think it is valid in RFC 5322, but NOT in RFC 3977 and NOT in USEFOR.

This syntax is taken from RFC 3977, which says:

Header lines SHOULD NOT be folded before the space
after the colon that follows the header name.

It is not a MUST NOT :)
Of course it is better not to do such a folding.

>> header-content = [WS] token *( [CRLF] WS token )
>
> I think that is just to allow extra WS once you have got past the
> obligatory first SP. I think it works.

OK. Yes it works.

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Je viens de rencontrer Isocèle : il a une idée pour un nouveau triangle. » (Woody Allen)

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3LGCG7X062333 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:12:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3LGCGOk062331; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:12:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net (v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net [79.135.125.43]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3LGC2XT062295 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:12:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster&pop3#clerew*man#ac&uk) by v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) id 49edf052.6f3e.166 for [email-masked]; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:12:02 +0100 (envelope-sender )
Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id n3LGC11L025345 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:12:01 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id n3LGC0V3025342 for [email-masked]; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:12:00 +0100 (BST)
To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:25044
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey"
Subject: Re: Headers folding
Message-ID:
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
References:
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:15:03 GMT
Lines: 56
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

In =?iso-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?= writes:

>A.1. Header Folding

> NNTP allows a header line to be folded (by inserting a CRLF pair)
> before any space or TAB character.

> Both email and Netnews articles are required to have at least one
> octet other than space or TAB on each header line. Thus, folding can
> only happen at one point in each sequence of consecutive spaces or
> TABs. Netnews articles are further required to have the header name,
> colon, and following space all on the first line; folding may only
> happen beyond that space. Finally, some non-conforming software will
> remove trailing spaces and TABs from a line. Therefore, it might be
> inadvisable to fold a header after a space or TAB.

> For maximum safety, header lines SHOULD conform to the following
> syntax rather than to that in Section 9.7.

> header = header-name ":" SP [header-content] CRLF
> header-content = [WS] token *( [CRLF] WS token )

I think that comes to the same thing as USEFOR (except it is less
restrictive as regards the quoted-strings and whatnot).

>Well, my question is for 9.7:

> header = header-name ":" [CRLF] SP header-content CRLF

>Is it a valid header for USEFOR? and for RFC 5322?

I think it is valid in RFC 5322, but NOT in RFC 3977 and NOT in USEFOR.

>In A.1, it looks strange to have written the syntax this way:

> header-content = [WS] token *( [CRLF] WS token )

>Hopefully it works! (token does not contain WS but it comes
>afterwards with "WS token"!)

I think that is just to allow extra WS once you have got past the
obligatory first SP. I think it works.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 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

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3LGCGEO062332 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:12:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3LGCG9s062330; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:12:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net (v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net [79.135.125.43]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3LGC2cg062296 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:12:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster#pop3*clerew*man*ac$uk) by v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) id 49edf052.6f53.188 for [email-masked]; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:12:02 +0100 (envelope-sender )
Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id n3LGC1qM025354 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:12:01 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id n3LGC1qa025351 for [email-masked]; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:12:01 +0100 (BST)
To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:25045
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey"
Subject: Re: Just got AUTH48 notice for USEPRO
Message-ID:
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
References: <[email-masked]> <7CFAF1AD2506465CA5BF2B008A857C9D@Iulius>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:17:00 GMT
Lines: 29
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

In <7CFAF1AD2506465CA5BF2B008A857C9D@Iulius> =?Windows-1252?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?= writes:

>> B. I see that in RFC 5322 has added an extra FWS that was not
>> there before, but that is compensated by removal of an FWS in , so I
>> do not think it affects us. Likewise various other shuntings around of FWS
>> within .

>But we still keep obsolete GMT-like constructions.

Of course? It is there because CNEWS, and maybe others, still does it.

>> Comparison of all that with the present text will show that it is
>> considerably shorter, and much easier to understand.

>Absolutely. I believe your suggested changes should be applied during AUTH48.

OK, that makes two of us. Anyone else?

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 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

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3LG9g7j062078 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:09:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3LG9gGm062077; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:09:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 27.mail-out.ovh.net (27.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.30.210]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n3LG9VjT062067 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:09:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 26906 invoked by uid 503); 21 Apr 2009 16:42:28 -0000
Received: from b6.ovh.net (HELO mail56.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.56) by 27.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 21 Apr 2009 16:42:28 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 21 Apr 2009 16:09:30 -0000
Received: from aaubervilliers-151-1-59-169.w83-112.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 21 Apr 2009 16:09:29 -0000
Message-ID:
From: =?iso-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
References: <[email-masked]>
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Headers folding
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:07:13 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-15"; reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 17273837846815636921
X-Ovh-Remote: 83.112.154.169 (aaubervilliers-151-1-59-169.w83-112.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi Harald,

>> header = header-name ":" [CRLF] SP header-content CRLF
>>
>> Is it a valid header for USEFOR? and for RFC 5322?
>
> I'm sure it is possible to construct a header that conforms to this syntax but isn't valid in USEFOR (the header "Date: nonsense"
> is illegal both in USEFOR and in RFC 5322, but conforms to the syntax above).
>
> The syntax above also (and perhaps more importantly) allows UTF-8 in headers, something that is illegal in RFC 5322 and USEFOR.

OK, thanks a lot.
Have a nice day,

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Je viens de rencontrer Isocèle : il a une idée pour un nouveau
triangle. » (Woody Allen)

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3LB2GeC038775 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:02:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3LB2Gx9038774; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:02:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3LB2Fi9038767 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:02:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1AB39E2B8; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:02:14 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5BMFkiThSpks; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:02:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-warp.trd.corp.google.com (unknown [195.18.164.170]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDDA739E224; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:02:10 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:02:10 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090318)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
CC: Usefor WG
Subject: Re: Archived-At: header field
References: <1CAB722E203C456AB80B5905A7BAC6F7@Iulius>
In-Reply-To: <1CAB722E203C456AB80B5905A7BAC6F7@Iulius>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Julien =C9LIE wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I see that RFC 5064 defines the Archived-At: header field for Netnews.
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5064.txt
>
>
> Shouldn't it be referenced somewhere in USEFOR?
> (And maybe also in USEPRO? as a note in the gatewaying section?)
>
I hope not. We allow free extensibility of headers.

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3LAwdS9038289 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 03:58:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3LAwddQ038288; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 03:58:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3LAwcCD038278 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 03:58:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BD039E2B8; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:58:37 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B7CdtvCp6cdi; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:58:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-warp.trd.corp.google.com (unknown [195.18.164.170]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 255A539E224; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:58:33 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:58:32 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090318)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
CC: Usefor WG
Subject: Re: Headers folding
References:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Julien =C9LIE wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As you are speaking about headers and compliance of USEFOR with
> RFC 3977 and RFC 5322, I wonder what happens to folding.
>
> In RFC 3977, we have:
>
>
> 9.7. Articles
>
> header =3D header-name ":" [CRLF] SP header-content CRLF
> header-content =3D *(S-CHAR / [CRLF] WS)
> S-CHAR =3D %x21-FF
> WS =3D 1*(SP / TAB)
> SP =3D %x20
> TAB =3D %x09
>
> A.1. Header Folding
>
> NNTP allows a header line to be folded (by inserting a CRLF pair)
> before any space or TAB character.
>
> Both email and Netnews articles are required to have at least one
> octet other than space or TAB on each header line. Thus, folding can=

> only happen at one point in each sequence of consecutive spaces or
> TABs. Netnews articles are further required to have the header name,=

> colon, and following space all on the first line; folding may only
> happen beyond that space. Finally, some non-conforming software will=

> remove trailing spaces and TABs from a line. Therefore, it might be
> inadvisable to fold a header after a space or TAB.
>
> For maximum safety, header lines SHOULD conform to the following
> syntax rather than to that in Section 9.7.
>
>
> header =3D header-name ":" SP [header-content] CRLF
> header-content =3D [WS] token *( [CRLF] WS token )
>
> token =3D 1*P-CHAR
> P-CHAR =3D A-CHAR / UTF8-non-ascii
> A-CHAR =3D %x21-7E
> UTF8-non-ascii =3D UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
> UTF8-2 =3D %xC2-DF UTF8-tail
> UTF8-3 =3D %xE0 %xA0-BF UTF8-tail / %xE1-EC 2UTF8-tail /
> %xED %x80-9F UTF8-tail / %xEE-EF 2UTF8-tail
> UTF8-4 =3D %xF0 %x90-BF 2UTF8-tail / %xF1-F3 3UTF8-tail /
> %xF4 %x80-8F 2UTF8-tail
> UTF8-tail =3D %x80-BF
>
>
>
>
> Well, my question is for 9.7:
>
> header =3D header-name ":" [CRLF] SP header-content CRLF
>
> Is it a valid header for USEFOR? and for RFC 5322?
I'm sure it is possible to construct a header that conforms to this=20
syntax but isn't valid in USEFOR (the header "Date: nonsense" is illegal =

both in USEFOR and in RFC 5322, but conforms to the syntax above).

The syntax above also (and perhaps more importantly) allows UTF-8 in=20
headers, something that is illegal in RFC 5322 and USEFOR. You should=20
check for conformance with the EAI spec.
>
>
> In A.1, it looks strange to have written the syntax this way:
>
> header-content =3D [WS] token *( [CRLF] WS token )
>
> Hopefully it works! (token does not contain WS but it comes
> afterwards with "WS token"!)
>

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3LApPCV037749 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 03:51:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3LApPfF037748; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 03:51:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3LApMMC037736 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 03:51:23 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5AF39E2B8; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:51:22 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7HdMAqCTkJuV; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:51:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-warp.trd.corp.google.com (unknown [195.18.164.170]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB80839E224; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:51:17 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:51:17 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090318)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Charles Lindsey
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Just got AUTH48 notice for USEPRO
References: <[email-masked]>
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

I think I like this, but would definitely want other people to take a
look too.

Harald

Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In "Charles Lindsey" writes:
>
>
>> I have looked as USEFOR so far, and the RFC-Editor has changed a host of
>> nits to meet his "house style" and they mostly seem fine.
>>
>
>
>> But there is one big issue, and that is he wants to replace RFC 2822 with
>> RFC 5322 throughout. That is fine by me, but if we do it for one we need
>> to do it for both, and in the case of USEFOR it would require a
>> considerable pruning of the syntax of .
>>
>
>
>> Essentially, the USEFOR syntax is a strict subset of the RFC 2822 syntax,
>> but NOT of the RFC 5322 syntax. And since the changes of syntax between
>> 2822 and 5322 were made at the express request of us Usenet folk, it would
>> seem churlish not to adopt them (especially since doing so would remove a
>> singularly long and ugly set of now unnecessary syntax rules).
>>
>
>
>> Therefore, I propose that we should do that. I will try to produce the
>> necessary textual changes in the next few days.
>>
>
> OK, I think the issue of whether to rebase the documents on RFC5322 rather
> than RFC2822 requires some input from the WG. The Rfc-Editor seems to
> think it should be done, and she has provisionally edited both documents
> that way. And it it will indeed get us out of various awkward corners
> regarding the IANA registrations of the various header fields and other
> such editorial confusions, so I personally would support it.
>
> In USEPRO (now RFC5537) it is easily done, but in USEFOR (now RFC5536)
> there are some consequential changes that would be needed. Here is what I
> have reported to the other editors for their consideration. Some comment
> on my proposals from the WG is desirable.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> At the time the USEFOR draft was submitted for Last Call, RFC 2822 was
> still current. For severe technical reasons, the syntax of was
> totally unsuited to Netnews, hence the cumbersome and ugly syntax you see
> in 3.1.3 which contained the minimal change that would work and yet still
> allow us to say, in 2.2 (and also in Appendix C):
>
> .... The syntax allowed for Netnews
> article headers is a strict subset of the "Internet Message Format"
> headers, making all headers compliant with this specification
> inherently compliant with [RFC2822]. ...
>
> When the update to RFC 2822 was being discussed, some of us lobbied for
> changes to the syntax that would avoid those technical problems
> with Netnews and, much to our surprise, we managed to get 95% of what we
> wanted. In fact, they went further than we asked, by entirely removing
> NO-WS-CTL, s and from , which was
> fine, except that now Netnews has become, in some parts, a superset of the
> new RFC 5322, so the sentence quoted above is no longer true.
>
> Personally, I would be happy to move the whole thing to be based on RFC
> 5322, but it would require some consequential changes to restore that
> 'subset' situation. But I think we would need to check back with the WG
> before going ahead. Here is what would be needed:
>
> A. RFC 5322 no longer defines . Instead, it uses VCHAR from RFC
> 5234, which comprises the old with all the control characters
> (NO-WS-CTL) omitted (and we don't really want those control characters
> either). So, in our section 2.2 you would now write:
>
> unstructured = *WSP VCHAR *( [FWS] VCHAR ) *WSP
>
> (which still differs from in RFC 5322 by requiring at least
> one visible character). You also need to remove from 1.4 and add
> VCHAR in its place.
>
> B. I see that in RFC 5322 has added an extra FWS that was not
> there before, but that is compensated by removal of an FWS in , so I
> do not think it affects us. Likewise various other shuntings around of FWS
> within .
>
> C. Section 3.1.3 would need to be written as follows:
>
> 3.1.3. Message-ID
>
> The Message-ID header field contains a unique message identifier.
> Netnews is more dependent on message identifier uniqueness and fast
> comparison than Email is, and some news software and standards
> [RFC3977] might have trouble with the full range of possible
> s permitted by [RFC5322]. This section therefore restricts
> the syntax of as compared to Section 3.6.4 of [RFC5322].
> The global uniqueness requirement for in [RFC5322] is to be
> understood as applying across all protocols using such message
> identifiers, and across both Email and Netnews in particular.
>
> message-id = "Message-ID:" SP *WSP msg-id *WSP CRLF
>
> msg-id = "<" msg-id-core ">"
> ; maximum length is 250 octets
>
> msg-id-core = id-left "@" id-right
>
> {{EDITORIAL NOTE: Those still remove the possibility of s; it
> also introduces which is a useful concept (though I don't
> think either document uses it any more).}}
>
> id-left = dot-atom-text
>
> id-right = dot-atom-text / no-fold-literal
>
> {{EDITORIAL NOTE: Those are actually identical to RFC 5322 if you apply
> the blanket removal of obs-syntax in 2.1; but it might be kinder to leave
> them in.}}
>
> no-fold-literal = "[" *mdtext "]"
>
> mdtext = %d33-61 / ; The rest of the US-ASCII
> %d63-90 / ; characters not including
> %d94-126 ; ">", "[", "]", or "\"
>
> {{EDITORIAL NOTE: replaces from RFC 5322 (or you could
> simply redefine ); the effect is to remove ">".}}
>
> The msg-id MUST NOT be more than 250 octets in length.
>
> NOTE: The length restriction ensures that systems that accept
> message identifiers as a parameter when referencing an article
> (e.g. [RFC3977]) can rely on a bounded length.
>
> Observe that msg-id includes the < and >.
>
> Observe also that in contrast to the corresponding header field in
> [RFC5322]:
>
> o The syntax does not allow comments within the Message-ID header
> field,
>
> o There is no possibility for ">" to occur inside a .
>
> {{EDITORIAL NOTE: I have removed the bullet about s now being
> case-sensitive because I cannot see that they ever were so even in RFC
> 2822, and if they were then we have done nothing to change that.}}
>
> This is to simplify processing by news servers and to ensure
> interoperability with existing implementations and compliance with
> [RFC3977]. Moreover, a simple comparison of octets will always suffice
> to determine the identity of two s.
>
> {{EDITORIAL NOTE: I think that last sentence is now also true of RFC 5322,
> but it is still useful to emphasise it.}}
>
> Also note that this updated ABNF applies wherever is used,
> including the References header field discussed in Section 3.2.10 and
> the Supersedes header field discussed in Section 3.2.12.
>
> Some current software may try to match the of a in
> a case-insensitive fashion; some may match it in a case-sensitive
> fashion. Implementations MUST NOT generate a Message-ID where the only
> difference from another Message-ID is the case of characters in the
> part.
>
> When generating a , implementations SHOULD use a domain name
> as the .
>
> NOTE: Section 3.6.4 of [RFC5322] recommends that the
> should be a domain name or a domain literal. Domain literals are
> troublesome since many IP addresses are not globally unique;
> domain names are more likely to generate unique Message-IDs.
>
>
> Comparison of all that with the present text will show that it is
> considerably shorter, and much easier to understand.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3IIM2RX015296 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:22:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3IIM2nE015295; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:22:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 30.mail-out.ovh.net (30.mail-out.ovh.net [213.186.62.213]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n3IILoDk015267 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:22:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 32710 invoked by uid 503); 18 Apr 2009 18:22:03 -0000
Received: from b9.ovh.net (HELO mail439.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.59) by 30.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 18 Apr 2009 18:22:03 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 18 Apr 2009 18:22:03 -0000
Received: from aaubervilliers-151-1-59-169.w83-112.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 18 Apr 2009 18:22:02 -0000
Message-ID:
From: =?iso-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
Subject: Headers folding
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:19:36 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-15"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 1894326593474854329
X-Ovh-Remote: 83.112.154.169 (aaubervilliers-151-1-59-169.w83-112.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi,

As you are speaking about headers and compliance of USEFOR with
RFC 3977 and RFC 5322, I wonder what happens to folding.

In RFC 3977, we have:

9.7. Articles

header = header-name ":" [CRLF] SP header-content CRLF
header-content = *(S-CHAR / [CRLF] WS)
S-CHAR = %x21-FF
WS = 1*(SP / TAB)
SP = %x20
TAB = %x09

A.1. Header Folding

NNTP allows a header line to be folded (by inserting a CRLF pair)
before any space or TAB character.

Both email and Netnews articles are required to have at least one
octet other than space or TAB on each header line. Thus, folding can
only happen at one point in each sequence of consecutive spaces or
TABs. Netnews articles are further required to have the header name,
colon, and following space all on the first line; folding may only
happen beyond that space. Finally, some non-conforming software will
remove trailing spaces and TABs from a line. Therefore, it might be
inadvisable to fold a header after a space or TAB.

For maximum safety, header lines SHOULD conform to the following
syntax rather than to that in Section 9.7.

header = header-name ":" SP [header-content] CRLF
header-content = [WS] token *( [CRLF] WS token )

token = 1*P-CHAR
P-CHAR = A-CHAR / UTF8-non-ascii
A-CHAR = %x21-7E
UTF8-non-ascii = UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
UTF8-2 = %xC2-DF UTF8-tail
UTF8-3 = %xE0 %xA0-BF UTF8-tail / %xE1-EC 2UTF8-tail /
%xED %x80-9F UTF8-tail / %xEE-EF 2UTF8-tail
UTF8-4 = %xF0 %x90-BF 2UTF8-tail / %xF1-F3 3UTF8-tail /
%xF4 %x80-8F 2UTF8-tail
UTF8-tail = %x80-BF

Well, my question is for 9.7:

header = header-name ":" [CRLF] SP header-content CRLF

Is it a valid header for USEFOR? and for RFC 5322?

In A.1, it looks strange to have written the syntax this way:

header-content = [WS] token *( [CRLF] WS token )

Hopefully it works! (token does not contain WS but it comes
afterwards with "WS token"!)

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Rubor, tumor, dolor, calor et functio laesa. »

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3IBLVWb090128 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:21:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3IBLVXt090127; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:21:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 2.mail-out.ovh.net (2.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.26.226]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n3IBLIlI090098 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:21:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 10242 invoked by uid 503); 18 Apr 2009 11:54:52 -0000
Received: from b7.ovh.net (HELO mail185.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.57) by 2.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 18 Apr 2009 11:54:52 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 18 Apr 2009 11:20:52 -0000
Received: from aaubervilliers-151-1-59-169.w83-112.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 18 Apr 2009 11:20:50 -0000
Message-ID: <7CFAF1AD2506465CA5BF2B008A857C9D@Iulius>
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
References: <[email-masked]>
In-Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Just got AUTH48 notice for USEPRO
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:19:03 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 13227635056849780153
X-Ovh-Remote: 83.112.154.169 (aaubervilliers-151-1-59-169.w83-112.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi Charles,

> When the update to RFC 2822 was being discussed, some of us lobbied for
> changes to the syntax that would avoid those technical problems
> with Netnews and, much to our surprise, we managed to get 95% of what we
> wanted. In fact, they went further than we asked, by entirely removing
> NO-WS-CTL, s and from

That's a nice improvement. It then also simplifies what RFC 3977 states
about such quoted strings:

This specification states that message-ids are the same if and only
if they consist of the same sequence of octets. Other specifications
may define two different sequences as being equal because they are
putting an interpretation on particular characters. RFC 2822
[RFC2822] has a concept of "quoted" and "escaped" characters. It
therefore considers the three message-ids:

<"ab.cd"@example.com>
<"ab.\cd"@example.com>

as being identical. Therefore, an NNTP implementation handing email
articles must ensure that only one of these three appears in the
protocol and that the other two are converted to it as and when
necessary, such as when a client checks the results of a NEWNEWS
command against an internal database of message-ids. Note that
RFC 1036 [RFC1036] never treats two different strings as being
identical. Its successor (as of the time of writing) restricts the
syntax of message-ids so that, whenever RFC 2822 would treat two
strings as equivalent, only one of them is valid (in the above
example, only the first string is valid).

It is now clearer with RFC 5322 and... 5536!

> A. RFC 5322 no longer defines . Instead, it uses VCHAR from RFC
> 5234, which comprises the old with all the control characters
> (NO-WS-CTL) omitted (and we don't really want those control characters
> either). So, in our section 2.2 you would now write:
>
> unstructured = *WSP VCHAR *( [FWS] VCHAR ) *WSP
>
> (which still differs from in RFC 5322 by requiring at least
> one visible character). You also need to remove from 1.4 and add
> VCHAR in its place.

It still a subset of RFC 5322 even though our is not contained
in theirs (we do not allow "Distribution:\r\n" whereas RFC 5322 does
for instance).

I think your new definition is good.

> B. I see that in RFC 5322 has added an extra FWS that was not
> there before, but that is compensated by removal of an FWS in , so I
> do not think it affects us. Likewise various other shuntings around of FWS
> within .

But we still keep obsolete GMT-like constructions.

> Comparison of all that with the present text will show that it is
> considerably shorter, and much easier to understand.

Absolutely. I believe your suggested changes should be applied during AUTH48.

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Rubor, tumor, dolor, calor et functio laesa. »

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3HGCQwv027309 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:12:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3HGCQib027308; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:12:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from v-smtp-auth-relay-1.gradwell.net (v-smtp-auth-relay-1.gradwell.net [79.135.125.40]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3HGCE58027283 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:12:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster*pop3^clerew*man#ac^uk) by v-smtp-auth-relay-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) id 49e8aa5e.2203.10a for [email-masked]; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:12:14 +0100 (envelope-sender )
Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id n3HGC3ni019889 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:12:03 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id n3HGC3KP019886 for [email-masked]; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:12:03 +0100 (BST)
To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:25041
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey"
Subject: Re: Typos in USEFOR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Message-ID:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
References: <3ED4A549867C42B090DC1709856897F6@Iulius>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:07:38 GMT
Lines: 116
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

In <3ED4A549867C42B090DC1709856897F6@Iulius> =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?= writes:

>Hi,

>Just a few remarks on USEFOR in case it is still time (AUTH48?) to
>take some of them into account.

OK, I have forwarded these to the editors.

>In 2.3:

> User agents MUST meet the definition of MIME conformance in [RFC2049]
> and MUST also support [RFC2231]. This level of MIME conformance
> provides support for internationalization and multimedia in message
> bodies ([RFC2045], [RFC2046], [RFC2231]), and support for
> internationalization of header fields ([RFC2047], [RFC2231]). Note
> that [Errata] currently exist for [RFC2046] and [RFC2231].

>RFC 2045 and 2047 also have errata. Shouldn't it be mentioned?
>(Or no mention of errata at all? It is not said elsewhere in the document.)

I think you are right.

>In 3:

> Each of these header fields may occur at most once in a news article.

>What should we understand? That they SHOULD NOT appear more than once?
>Why isn't it said in a less ambiguous way?

It needs a MUST NOT.

>Still in 3:

> Control
> Distribution
> Followup-To
> Newsgroups
> Lines
> Path
> Supersedes
> Xref

>Newsgroups after Lines, in alphabetical order.

Already fixed by the RFE-Editor.

>In 3.1.3:

> NOTE: The length restriction ensures that systems that accept
> message identifiers as a parameter when referencing an article
> (e.g. [RFC3977]) can rely on a bounded length.

>Only one space after "e.g." here.

Already fixed by the RFE-Editor (and also a comma inserted, and likewise
many tiny edits to fit her "house style".

>Still in 3.1.3:

> The msg-id MUST NOT be more than 250 octets in length.

> Observe that msg-id includes the < and >.

>Shouldn't it be ? (or message-ID?)

It should be

>Still in 3.1.3:

> o even though commonly derived from s, s are
> case-sensitive (and thus, once created, are not to be altered
> during subsequent transmission or copying)

>A final dot is missing.
>Incidentally, I think that lists should be homogenized in the document
>(sometimes they end with ".", sometimes with ",", sometimes with nothing).

Yep.

>In 3.2.4:

> The s "world" and "local" are reserved. "world" indicates
> [...]

>The whole section is impacted. Full dots are not followed by two spaces.

A misfeature of nroff, I think.

>In 3.2.6:

> The Followup-To header field specifies to which newsgroup(s) the
> poster has requested that followups are to be posted.

>Shouldn't it be "the poster has requested that followups should be posted"?
>Or with the subjunctive "the poster has requested that followups be posted"?

Not so sure.

>--
>Julien ÉLIE

>« Mais dis à ton ami qu'il cesse de jeter notre argent par les écoutilles ! » (Astérix)

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 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

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3HGCKgY027298 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:12:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3HGCKlN027297; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:12:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from v-smtp-auth-relay-2.gradwell.net (v-smtp-auth-relay-2.gradwell.net [79.135.125.41]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3HGC7Lh027273 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:12:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster*pop3#clerew^man*ac$uk) by v-smtp-auth-relay-2.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) id 49e8aa52.5481.135 for [email-masked]; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:12:02 +0100 (envelope-sender )
Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id n3HGC29k019879 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:12:02 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id n3HGC2ph019876 for [email-masked]; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:12:02 +0100 (BST)
To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:25040
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey"
Subject: Re: Just got AUTH48 notice for USEPRO
Message-ID:
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
References: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:36:34 GMT
Lines: 177
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

In "Charles Lindsey" writes:

>I have looked as USEFOR so far, and the RFC-Editor has changed a host of
>nits to meet his "house style" and they mostly seem fine.

>But there is one big issue, and that is he wants to replace RFC 2822 with
>RFC 5322 throughout. That is fine by me, but if we do it for one we need
>to do it for both, and in the case of USEFOR it would require a
>considerable pruning of the syntax of .

>Essentially, the USEFOR syntax is a strict subset of the RFC 2822 syntax,
>but NOT of the RFC 5322 syntax. And since the changes of syntax between
>2822 and 5322 were made at the express request of us Usenet folk, it would
>seem churlish not to adopt them (especially since doing so would remove a
>singularly long and ugly set of now unnecessary syntax rules).

>Therefore, I propose that we should do that. I will try to produce the
>necessary textual changes in the next few days.

OK, I think the issue of whether to rebase the documents on RFC5322 rather
than RFC2822 requires some input from the WG. The Rfc-Editor seems to
think it should be done, and she has provisionally edited both documents
that way. And it it will indeed get us out of various awkward corners
regarding the IANA registrations of the various header fields and other
such editorial confusions, so I personally would support it.

In USEPRO (now RFC5537) it is easily done, but in USEFOR (now RFC5536)
there are some consequential changes that would be needed. Here is what I
have reported to the other editors for their consideration. Some comment
on my proposals from the WG is desirable.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the time the USEFOR draft was submitted for Last Call, RFC 2822 was
still current. For severe technical reasons, the syntax of was
totally unsuited to Netnews, hence the cumbersome and ugly syntax you see
in 3.1.3 which contained the minimal change that would work and yet still
allow us to say, in 2.2 (and also in Appendix C):

.... The syntax allowed for Netnews
article headers is a strict subset of the "Internet Message Format"
headers, making all headers compliant with this specification
inherently compliant with [RFC2822]. ...

When the update to RFC 2822 was being discussed, some of us lobbied for
changes to the syntax that would avoid those technical problems
with Netnews and, much to our surprise, we managed to get 95% of what we
wanted. In fact, they went further than we asked, by entirely removing
NO-WS-CTL, s and from , which was
fine, except that now Netnews has become, in some parts, a superset of the
new RFC 5322, so the sentence quoted above is no longer true.

Personally, I would be happy to move the whole thing to be based on RFC
5322, but it would require some consequential changes to restore that
'subset' situation. But I think we would need to check back with the WG
before going ahead. Here is what would be needed:

A. RFC 5322 no longer defines . Instead, it uses VCHAR from RFC
5234, which comprises the old with all the control characters
(NO-WS-CTL) omitted (and we don't really want those control characters
either). So, in our section 2.2 you would now write:

unstructured = *WSP VCHAR *( [FWS] VCHAR ) *WSP

(which still differs from in RFC 5322 by requiring at least
one visible character). You also need to remove from 1.4 and add
VCHAR in its place.

B. I see that in RFC 5322 has added an extra FWS that was not
there before, but that is compensated by removal of an FWS in , so I
do not think it affects us. Likewise various other shuntings around of FWS
within .

C. Section 3.1.3 would need to be written as follows:

3.1.3. Message-ID

The Message-ID header field contains a unique message identifier.
Netnews is more dependent on message identifier uniqueness and fast
comparison than Email is, and some news software and standards
[RFC3977] might have trouble with the full range of possible
s permitted by [RFC5322]. This section therefore restricts
the syntax of as compared to Section 3.6.4 of [RFC5322].
The global uniqueness requirement for in [RFC5322] is to be
understood as applying across all protocols using such message
identifiers, and across both Email and Netnews in particular.

message-id = "Message-ID:" SP *WSP msg-id *WSP CRLF

msg-id = "<" msg-id-core ">"
; maximum length is 250 octets

msg-id-core = id-left "@" id-right

{{EDITORIAL NOTE: Those still remove the possibility of s; it
also introduces which is a useful concept (though I don't
think either document uses it any more).}}

id-left = dot-atom-text

id-right = dot-atom-text / no-fold-literal

{{EDITORIAL NOTE: Those are actually identical to RFC 5322 if you apply
the blanket removal of obs-syntax in 2.1; but it might be kinder to leave
them in.}}

no-fold-literal = "[" *mdtext "]"

mdtext = %d33-61 / ; The rest of the US-ASCII
%d63-90 / ; characters not including
%d94-126 ; ">", "[", "]", or "\"

{{EDITORIAL NOTE: replaces from RFC 5322 (or you could
simply redefine ); the effect is to remove ">".}}

The msg-id MUST NOT be more than 250 octets in length.

NOTE: The length restriction ensures that systems that accept
message identifiers as a parameter when referencing an article
(e.g. [RFC3977]) can rely on a bounded length.

Observe that msg-id includes the < and >.

Observe also that in contrast to the corresponding header field in
[RFC5322]:

o The syntax does not allow comments within the Message-ID header
field,

o There is no possibility for ">" to occur inside a .

{{EDITORIAL NOTE: I have removed the bullet about s now being
case-sensitive because I cannot see that they ever were so even in RFC
2822, and if they were then we have done nothing to change that.}}

This is to simplify processing by news servers and to ensure
interoperability with existing implementations and compliance with
[RFC3977]. Moreover, a simple comparison of octets will always suffice
to determine the identity of two s.

{{EDITORIAL NOTE: I think that last sentence is now also true of RFC 5322,
but it is still useful to emphasise it.}}

Also note that this updated ABNF applies wherever is used,
including the References header field discussed in Section 3.2.10 and
the Supersedes header field discussed in Section 3.2.12.

Some current software may try to match the of a in
a case-insensitive fashion; some may match it in a case-sensitive
fashion. Implementations MUST NOT generate a Message-ID where the only
difference from another Message-ID is the case of characters in the
part.

When generating a , implementations SHOULD use a domain name
as the .

NOTE: Section 3.6.4 of [RFC5322] recommends that the
should be a domain name or a domain literal. Domain literals are
troublesome since many IP addresses are not globally unique;
domain names are more likely to generate unique Message-IDs.

Comparison of all that with the present text will show that it is
considerably shorter, and much easier to understand.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 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

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3FLWgrc063628 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:32:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3FLWgfa063627; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:32:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 30.mail-out.ovh.net (30.mail-out.ovh.net [213.186.62.213]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n3FLWUBe063618 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:32:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 32508 invoked by uid 503); 15 Apr 2009 21:32:43 -0000
Received: from gw2.ovh.net (HELO mail174.ha.ovh.net) (213.251.189.202) by 30.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 15 Apr 2009 21:32:43 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 15 Apr 2009 21:32:28 -0000
Received: from aaubervilliers-151-1-59-169.w83-112.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 15 Apr 2009 21:32:27 -0000
Message-ID:
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
References: <[email-masked]> <96088B3EFAFE49899F643996FBEC91B5@Iulius> <5BD46A76620B4AAAB7267B8C2BD06547@Iulius>
In-Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Use of message disposition notification
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:30:20 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 5938840535514283449
X-Ovh-Remote: 83.112.154.169 (aaubervilliers-151-1-59-169.w83-112.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi Charles,

> But on looking at the FAQs that I regularly post, I see that they have
> been adding Cancel-Locks and Cancel-Keys to them, and they seem to have
> worked.
>
> Is that draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01.txt still a correct description
> of the algorithm as it is now implemented?

It looks so.
The syntax is valid, as well as lock keys hashes.

Here is for instance the Perl implementation on news.albasani.net:

http://albasani.net/viewvc.cgi/trunk/lib/Schnuerpel/INN/CancelLock.pm?view=markup&root=schnuerpel

It is exactly what the draft suggests to do.

--
Julien ÉLIE

« -- C'est joli cette avenue le long de la mer... Ça s'appelle comment ?
-- La promenade des Bretons. » (Astérix)

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3FGCTKT037896 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:12:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3FGCTDg037895; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:12:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from v-smtp-auth-relay-5.gradwell.net (v-smtp-auth-relay-5.gradwell.net [79.135.125.99]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3FGCHTC037866 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:12:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster#pop3*clerew$man*ac*uk) by v-smtp-auth-relay-5.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) id 49e6075e.1da6.e86 for [email-masked]; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:12:14 +0100 (envelope-sender )
Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id n3FGC5V6012341 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:12:05 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id n3FGC4RW012336 for [email-masked]; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:12:04 +0100 (BST)
To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:25037
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey"
Subject: Re: Use of message disposition notification
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Message-ID:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
References: <[email-masked]> <96088B3EFAFE49899F643996FBEC91B5@Iulius> <5BD46A76620B4AAAB7267B8C2BD06547@Iulius>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:40:51 GMT
Lines: 37
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

In <5BD46A76620B4AAAB7267B8C2BD06547@Iulius> Julien ÉLIE writes:

>Hi Charles,

>> Cancel-Lock is not formally defined anywhere

>Yet, this draft can be a good starting point:
> http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01.txt

>> hence I know of no news-server that ever looks at it

>news.individual.net does not honour cancels and supersedes
>if there is no valid Cancel-Key: header.
> http://www.individual.net/faq.php#1.12
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.usenet.news-server-comparison/msg/7e6d4792819ad90f

Ah! I am a NIN customer, but they never told me about it :-( .

But on looking at the FAQs that I regularly post, I see that they have
been adding Cancel-Locks and Cancel-Keys to them, and they seem to have
worked.

Is that draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01.txt still a correct description
of the algorithm as it is now implemented?

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 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

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3FGCRPW037888 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:12:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3FGCRF6037887; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:12:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net (v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net [79.135.125.43]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3FGCFr3037856 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:12:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster&pop3*clerew$man&ac$uk) by v-smtp-auth-relay-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) id 49e6075e.2641.16c for [email-masked]; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:12:14 +0100 (envelope-sender )
Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id n3FGC5gs012349 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:12:05 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id n3FGC5QH012346 for [email-masked]; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:12:05 +0100 (BST)
To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:25038
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey"
Subject: Re: Just got AUTH48 notice for USEPRO
Message-ID:
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
References: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:54:02 GMT
Lines: 36
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

In <[email-masked]> Russ Allbery writes:

>I just got the AUTH48 notice for USEPRO. I'll try to look at it soon.

As a joint author of both documents, I get to see the AUTH48 comments of
both of them :-( .

I have looked as USEFOR so far, and the RFC-Editor has changed a host of
nits to meet his "house style" and they mostly seem fine.

But there is one big issue, and that is he wants to replace RFC 2822 with
RFC 5322 throughout. That is fine by me, but if we do it for one we need
to do it for both, and in the case of USEFOR it would require a
considerable pruning of the syntax of .

Essentially, the USEFOR syntax is a strict subset of the RFC 2822 syntax,
but NOT of the RFC 5322 syntax. And since the changes of syntax between
2822 and 5322 were made at the express request of us Usenet folk, it would
seem churlish not to adopt them (especially since doing so would remove a
singularly long and ugly set of now unnecessary syntax rules).

Therefore, I propose that we should do that. I will try to produce the
necessary textual changes in the next few days.

BTW, our two drafts will become RFC 5536 and 5537, which seems kind neat!

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 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

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3DGHGkB042621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:17:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3DGHGqK042620; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:17:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 39.mail-out.ovh.net (39.mail-out.ovh.net [213.251.138.60]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n3DGH3Qf042597 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:17:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 26467 invoked by uid 503); 13 Apr 2009 16:17:24 -0000
Received: from b6.ovh.net (HELO mail96.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.56) by 39.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 13 Apr 2009 16:17:24 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 13 Apr 2009 16:17:00 -0000
Received: from aaubervilliers-151-1-71-42.w81-48.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 13 Apr 2009 16:16:59 -0000
Message-ID: <5BD46A76620B4AAAB7267B8C2BD06547@Iulius>
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
References: <[email-masked]> <96088B3EFAFE49899F643996FBEC91B5@Iulius>
In-Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Use of message disposition notification
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:14:57 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 7312438420769865145
X-Ovh-Remote: 81.48.74.42 (aaubervilliers-151-1-71-42.w81-48.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi Charles,

> Cancel-Lock is not formally defined anywhere

Yet, this draft can be a good starting point:
http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01.txt

> hence I know of no news-server that ever looks at it

news.individual.net does not honour cancels and supersedes
if there is no valid Cancel-Key: header.
http://www.individual.net/faq.php#1.12
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.usenet.news-server-comparison/msg/7e6d4792819ad90f

news.albasani.net also added that:
http://albasani.net/wiki/FAQ_(English)#Cancel-Lock_.26_Cancel-Key

And maybe other servers too.

They do in with a Perl hook in INN.

> although a few people add it in hope

More and more people are doing that.

> Our original plan of work was that, when we were done with our present
> drafts, the next jobs would be UTF-8 in newsgroup-names

And also how to deal with UTF-8 Distribution: headers? (they are currently
limited to ALPHA/DIGIT/+/-/_)
MIME is not allowed for them.
UTF-8 newsgroup names will also impact headers (Control:, Xref:, etc.).

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Lorsqu'un savant meurt, c'est une bibliothèque qui brûle. » (Sabatier)

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3B8Aa7e066430 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:10:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3B8Aa9t066429; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:10:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 27.mail-out.ovh.net (27.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.30.210]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n3B8ANlw066412 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:10:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 22648 invoked by uid 503); 11 Apr 2009 08:36:34 -0000
Received: from b7.ovh.net (HELO mail425.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.57) by 27.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 11 Apr 2009 08:36:34 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 11 Apr 2009 08:10:24 -0000
Received: from aaubervilliers-151-1-71-42.w81-48.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 11 Apr 2009 08:10:23 -0000
Message-ID: <55C5C9C2574F4027A21D4E2FB6D26A66@Iulius>
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
References: <3ED4A549867C42B090DC1709856897F6@Iulius> <[email-masked]>
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Typos in USEFOR
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:08:22 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 5795851247579758009
X-Ovh-Remote: 81.48.74.42 (aaubervilliers-151-1-71-42.w81-48.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi Russ,

> My intention was to go through the various messages here about USEPRO
> sometime over the next couple of weeks and incorporate typo fixes and the
> like into my copy of the document, and then do a three-way merge with what
> the RFC Editor comes up with during AUTH48, sending the results of that
> process to the list so that everyone can review.

OK. I hope the "three-way merge" will be easy to do.

Enjoy your holiday,

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Bah ! Il est parti sur un coup de tête... » (Astérix)

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3ALwDgE039878 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:58:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3ALwDE1039877; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:58:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from smtp4.stanford.edu (smtp4.Stanford.EDU [171.67.219.84]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3ALw2RZ039866 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:58:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from smtp4.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id ED03A4869B3 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.67.225.134]) by smtp4.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B824863E6 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 808A4E7A19; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Just got AUTH48 notice for USEPRO
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
From: Russ Allbery
Organization: The Eyrie
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:58:01 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

I just got the AUTH48 notice for USEPRO. I'll try to look at it soon.

--
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3AK4hAA032933 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:04:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3AK4h5a032932; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:04:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.219.82]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3AK4W1I032916 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:04:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 9109351CBE8 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.67.225.134]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A5BA51CBCA for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1B0F7E7A19; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Usefor WG"
Subject: Re: Typos in USEFOR
In-Reply-To: <3ED4A549867C42B090DC1709856897F6@Iulius> ("Julien =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C9LIE=22's?= message of "Fri\, 10 Apr 2009 21\:35\:15 +0200")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
References: <3ED4A549867C42B090DC1709856897F6@Iulius>
From: Russ Allbery
Organization: The Eyrie
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:04:30 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Julien =C9LIE writes:

> Just a few remarks on USEFOR in case it is still time (AUTH48?) to
> take some of them into account.

Currently, the documents are being edited by the RFC Editor, after which
Charles and I will get copies of their edited version to do any final
changes and reconciliation. I'm fairly sure that they're both in that
state right now (they only tell me personally about USEPRO, but I imagine
they're editing the two together).

My intention was to go through the various messages here about USEPRO
sometime over the next couple of weeks and incorporate typo fixes and the
like into my copy of the document, and then do a three-way merge with what
the RFC Editor comes up with during AUTH48, sending the results of that
process to the list so that everyone can review.

I probably won't get a chance to look at the comments here in detail for
another couple of days. I'm going on vacation tomorrow, but will be
on-line somewhat from Canada.

--=20
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3AJbGoR031133 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:37:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3AJbGY6031132; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:37:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 26.mail-out.ovh.net (26.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.27.225]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n3AJbFoh031123 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:37:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 5929 invoked by uid 503); 10 Apr 2009 19:37:37 -0000
Received: from 42.mail-out.ovh.net (213.251.189.42) by 26.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 10 Apr 2009 19:37:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 15713 invoked by uid 503); 10 Apr 2009 19:37:17 -0000
Received: from b7.ovh.net (HELO mail421.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.57) by 42.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 10 Apr 2009 19:37:17 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 10 Apr 2009 19:37:13 -0000
Received: from aaubervilliers-151-1-71-42.w81-48.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 10 Apr 2009 19:37:12 -0000
Message-ID: <3ED4A549867C42B090DC1709856897F6@Iulius>
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
Subject: Typos in USEFOR
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:35:15 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-15"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 11522459648372637113
X-Ovh-Remote: 81.48.74.42 (aaubervilliers-151-1-71-42.w81-48.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi,

Just a few remarks on USEFOR in case it is still time (AUTH48?) to
take some of them into account.

In 2.3:

User agents MUST meet the definition of MIME conformance in [RFC2049]
and MUST also support [RFC2231]. This level of MIME conformance
provides support for internationalization and multimedia in message
bodies ([RFC2045], [RFC2046], [RFC2231]), and support for
internationalization of header fields ([RFC2047], [RFC2231]). Note
that [Errata] currently exist for [RFC2046] and [RFC2231].

RFC 2045 and 2047 also have errata. Shouldn't it be mentioned?
(Or no mention of errata at all? It is not said elsewhere in the document.)

In 3:

Each of these header fields may occur at most once in a news article.

What should we understand? That they SHOULD NOT appear more than once?
Why isn't it said in a less ambiguous way?

Still in 3:

Control
Distribution
Followup-To
Newsgroups
Lines
Path
Supersedes
Xref

Newsgroups after Lines, in alphabetical order.

In 3.1.3:

NOTE: The length restriction ensures that systems that accept
message identifiers as a parameter when referencing an article
(e.g. [RFC3977]) can rely on a bounded length.

Only one space after "e.g." here.

Still in 3.1.3:

The msg-id MUST NOT be more than 250 octets in length.

Observe that msg-id includes the < and >.

Shouldn't it be ? (or message-ID?)

Still in 3.1.3:

o even though commonly derived from s, s are
case-sensitive (and thus, once created, are not to be altered
during subsequent transmission or copying)

A final dot is missing.
Incidentally, I think that lists should be homogenized in the document
(sometimes they end with ".", sometimes with ",", sometimes with nothing).

In 3.2.4:

The s "world" and "local" are reserved. "world" indicates
[...]

The whole section is impacted. Full dots are not followed by two spaces.

In 3.2.6:

The Followup-To header field specifies to which newsgroup(s) the
poster has requested that followups are to be posted.

Shouldn't it be "the poster has requested that followups should be posted"?
Or with the subjunctive "the poster has requested that followups be posted"?

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Mais dis à ton ami qu'il cesse de jeter notre argent par les écoutilles ! » (Astérix)

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3AIt9x4028440 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:55:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n3AIt98E028439; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:55:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 26.mail-out.ovh.net (26.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.27.225]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n3AIsv8a028404 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:55:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 26451 invoked by uid 503); 10 Apr 2009 18:55:17 -0000
Received: from 42.mail-out.ovh.net (213.251.189.42) by 26.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 10 Apr 2009 18:55:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 3226 invoked by uid 503); 10 Apr 2009 18:54:56 -0000
Received: from b7.ovh.net (HELO mail421.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.57) by 42.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 10 Apr 2009 18:54:56 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 10 Apr 2009 18:54:52 -0000
Received: from aaubervilliers-151-1-71-42.w81-48.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 10 Apr 2009 18:54:51 -0000
Message-ID: <509B292F49314AD6ADE9FDC7761A5D2E@Iulius>
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
Subject: Assumption of USEFOR against RFC 3977
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:52:54 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-15"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 10807231732920745401
X-Ovh-Remote: 81.48.74.42 (aaubervilliers-151-1-71-42.w81-48.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi,

In USEFOR:

3.2.14. Xref

NOTE: The traditional form of an (as required by
[RFC3977]) is a decimal number, with articles in each newsgroup
numbered consecutively starting from 1.

Looking at this sentence, it seems that RFC 3977 requires that.
However, I do not see where it mentions that numbering is done
*consecutively*.
It is true that the "traditional form" is made that way but it
is not per RFC 3977.

See section 6 of RFC 3977:

On a particular server, there MUST only be one article
with a given number within any newsgroup, and an article MUST NOT
have two different numbers in the same newsgroup.

Article numbers MUST lie between 1 and 2,147,483,647, inclusive.

The next article in a newsgroup is defined as "the lowest existing
article number greater than the current article number" (6.1.4.2).
I think it is the best we can assume with RFC 3977.

--
Julien ÉLIE

« O fortunatos nimium, sua si bona norint, agricolas. » (Virgile)

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n39GCI4K028576 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:12:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n39GCI6w028574; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:12:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from v-smtp-auth-relay-3.gradwell.net (v-smtp-auth-relay-3.gradwell.net [79.135.125.42]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n39GC5ak028536 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:12:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster&pop3^clerew&man^ac^uk) by v-smtp-auth-relay-3.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) id 49de1e52.1245.239 for [email-masked]; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 17:12:02 +0100 (envelope-sender )
Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id n39GC1pm016829 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 17:12:01 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id n39GC2ka016825 for [email-masked]; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 17:12:02 +0100 (BST)
To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:25029
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey"
Subject: Re: Use of message disposition notification
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Message-ID:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
References: <[email-masked]> <96088B3EFAFE49899F643996FBEC91B5@Iulius>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:41:34 GMT
Lines: 31
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

In <96088B3EFAFE49899F643996FBEC91B5@Iulius> Julien ÉLIE writes:

>By the way, as you speak about security considerations, I see that USEPRO
>references both pgpmoose and pgpverify.
>Wouldn't a note on Cancel-Lock be added in 6.1? ("Currently, many sites are
>ignoring all cancel control messages and Supersedes header fields due to
>the difficulty of authenticating them and their widespread abuse.")
>It could be said that Cancel-Lock might be used (draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01)
>and also NoCeM, which is more and more spread nowadays.

Cancel-Lock is not formally defined anywhere, hence I know of no
news-server that ever looks at it, although a few people add it in hope
:-).

Our original plan of work was that, when we were done with our present
drafts, the next jobs would be UTF-8 in newsgroup-names and a document
covering security matters - notably pgpmoose and pgpverify (which really
need to be unified) plus Cancel-Locks and, I would hope, NoCeM. But those
would rechartering, and the probability of that happening is not,
shall we say, too promising :-( .

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 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

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n39GCIxU028577 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:12:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n39GCIls028575; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:12:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from v-smtp-auth-relay-3.gradwell.net (v-smtp-auth-relay-3.gradwell.net [79.135.125.42]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n39GC6oZ028538 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:12:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster$pop3^clerew*man^ac$uk) by v-smtp-auth-relay-3.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) id 49de1e52.1205.2b6 for [email-masked]; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 17:12:02 +0100 (envelope-sender )
Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id n39GC22C016837 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 17:12:02 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id n39GC1CI016834 for [email-masked]; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 17:12:01 +0100 (BST)
To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:25030
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey"
Subject: Re: Possible items for AUTH48
Message-ID:
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
References: <91D53A7F67F145D38CA721D3E9CA45AB@Iulius>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:48:08 GMT
Lines: 69
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

In <91D53A7F67F145D38CA721D3E9CA45AB@Iulius> =?Windows-1252?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?= writes:

>Hi Charles,

>> In section 3.5 (Duties of an injecting agent), Step 2, it states:
>>
>> "It MUST reject any proto-article ... that has a Path header field
>> containing the "POSTED" ;..."
>>
>> That is inconsistent with the recently altered section 3.4.1
>> (Proto-articles) which now states only that
>>
>> "the Path header field SHOULD NOT contain a "POSTED" ;"

>Why not say in 3.5 that it MAY reject such an article (instead of MUST)?
>It would be coherent with

> "It MAY reject any proto-article that contains trace header fields"

>> In section 5.4 (The Supersedes Header Field), it is not immediately clear
>> whether an Approved header is needed, as with Group control messages.
>> Diligent examination reveals that it is NOT required (and that is
>> correct). But it might be kinder to add:
>>
>> NOTE: It is not required (except in moderated groups) for a Supersedes
>> header field to be accompanied by an Approved header field.

>I reckon it would be useful to add your suggested note.

>> I have carefully noted all the places where [RFC2822] is mentioned, and it
>> appears that they would all be equally applicable to RFC5822, which is on
>> track to become a Draft Standard.

>Isn't it RFC 5322?
>RFC 5822 seems to be draft-hoffman-dac-vbr-04 and is not the same thing.

>> As regards the USEFOR draft, which will also be up for AUTH 48 at the same
>> time

>When is AUTH 48?
>Is there still some work on USEAGE? Why isn't it in the same state as USEFOR
>and USEPRO? Was it abandoned ?

The existing USEAGE draft, which contains quite a bit of text discussed by
the group, and also results of a short period of discussion some years
back, is now obviously badly out of date. The plan we are currently
supposed to be working to is to get the various drafts out one at a time.
So USEFOR and USEPRO are now just about done. So, in theory, we could now
go ahead with USEAGE (which would not need any rechartering). But whether
that will actually happen is entirely another matter :-( .

One of the things I am thinking of over the next few weeks is to dig out
that USEAGE draft, and update it to at least be consistent with the
current USEFOR and USEPRO. Then we would be in a better psoition to decide
whether to take it any further or not.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 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

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n38IcFGE027857 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:38:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n38IcFZ2027856; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:38:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 30.mail-out.ovh.net (30.mail-out.ovh.net [213.186.62.213]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n38IcDRc027848 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:38:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 16951 invoked by uid 503); 8 Apr 2009 18:38:28 -0000
Received: from gw2.ovh.net (HELO mail434.ha.ovh.net) (213.251.189.202) by 30.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Apr 2009 18:38:28 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Apr 2009 18:38:11 -0000
Received: from amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Apr 2009 18:38:09 -0000
Message-ID: <96088B3EFAFE49899F643996FBEC91B5@Iulius>
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
References: <[email-masked]>
In-Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Use of message disposition notification
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:36:15 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 17226550050887564729
X-Ovh-Remote: 90.57.241.22 (amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi Charles,

>>> It SHOULD reject any proto-article which contains a header field
>>> deprecated for Netnews (see, for example, [RFC3798] (Hansen, T. and
>>> G. Vaudreuil, "Message Disposition Notification," May 2004.)).
>
> RFC 3798 end of section 2.1:
>
> Messages posted to newsgroups SHOULD NOT have a Disposition-
> Notification-To header.
>
> The reason is that it could be used to send mail bombs. I suppose we could
> mention that reason in our Security Considerations.

Oh, thanks!
It is not easy at all to find out such headers!! I wonder how implementors
will manage to know the headers they should look at...

By the way, as you speak about security considerations, I see that USEPRO
references both pgpmoose and pgpverify.
Wouldn't a note on Cancel-Lock be added in 6.1? ("Currently, many sites are
ignoring all cancel control messages and Supersedes header fields due to
the difficulty of authenticating them and their widespread abuse.")
It could be said that Cancel-Lock might be used (draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01)
and also NoCeM, which is more and more spread nowadays.

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Les légionnaires ont adopté pour attaquer la redoutable tactique
dite de la tortue. Pour battre en retraite, les légionnaires
adoptent l'efficace tactique dite du lièvre. » (Astérix)

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n38ITkEb027104 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:29:46 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n38ITkW3027103; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:29:46 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 30.mail-out.ovh.net (30.mail-out.ovh.net [213.186.62.213]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n38ITiti027096 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:29:45 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 19511 invoked by uid 503); 8 Apr 2009 18:29:58 -0000
Received: from gw2.ovh.net (HELO mail434.ha.ovh.net) (213.251.189.202) by 30.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Apr 2009 18:29:58 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Apr 2009 18:29:22 -0000
Received: from amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Apr 2009 18:29:20 -0000
Message-ID:
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
Subject: Duties of agents as for obsolete control messages
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:27:26 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-15"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 17077649787333443001
X-Ovh-Remote: 90.57.241.22 (amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi,

Shouldn't it be said something in the duties of injecting agents
(and maybe relaying?) as for obsolete control messages
like sendsys, version, whogets and senduuname (section 5.6)?
They SHOULD be rejected (?)

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Les légionnaires ont adopté pour attaquer la redoutable tactique
dite de la tortue. Pour battre en retraite, les légionnaires
adoptent l'efficace tactique dite du lièvre. » (Astérix)

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n38IQSVL026874 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:26:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n38IQSGT026873; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:26:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 30.mail-out.ovh.net (30.mail-out.ovh.net [213.186.62.213]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n38IQQ3Q026866 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:26:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 9952 invoked by uid 503); 8 Apr 2009 18:26:42 -0000
Received: from gw2.ovh.net (HELO mail434.ha.ovh.net) (213.251.189.202) by 30.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Apr 2009 18:26:42 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Apr 2009 18:26:24 -0000
Received: from amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Apr 2009 18:26:23 -0000
Message-ID: <72C4E06ED8964D829D2DB6853DB83921@Iulius>
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
References:
In-Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Possible typos
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:24:29 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-15"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 17027828716172737977
X-Ovh-Remote: 90.57.241.22 (amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi,

Other typos:

In 4.3:
The content of the application/news-groupinfo body part is defined as:

It is application/news-checkgroups!

In both 4.3 and 5.2.1.1, could it be said that in the examples, spaces
are used in newsgroups descriptions but that they are in fact tabs?

In 5.2.3, as for a checkgroups control message:

It requests a news server update its valid newsgroup list for that hierarchy
to include the groups specified, remove any groups not specified, and update
group descriptions to match those given in the checkgroups control message.

Could it be said "and update group descriptions as well as moderation status to match
those..."?

In 5.3:

The cancel control message requests that a target article be withdrawn
from circulation and access.

In order to be consistent with the previous paragraphs, "that" should not be added
here after "requests" :)
The same goes in 5.4 for the Supersedes: header field and 5.5 for sendme. Whence maybe
"that" should be added in 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 instead? (It is a very minor remark.)

By the way, why does "Supersedes" always begin with a capital?
When we do not speak about the header, it should be a lower-case letter shouldn't it?
For instance in 3.4, "which cancels or Supersedes another article".

In 6.1:

Cancel control messages are not required to have the same Newsgroups
header field as the messages they are cancelling and, since they are
sometimes processed before the original message is received, it may not
be possible to check that they do.

"to check what they do"? "to check that"?

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Quand je raconterai mon odyssée, personne ne me croira ! » (Astérix)

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n38IHGlu026062 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:17:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n38IHGk0026061; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:17:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 30.mail-out.ovh.net (30.mail-out.ovh.net [213.186.62.213]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n38IH4iq026041 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:17:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 14099 invoked by uid 503); 8 Apr 2009 18:17:18 -0000
Received: from gw2.ovh.net (HELO mail434.ha.ovh.net) (213.251.189.202) by 30.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Apr 2009 18:17:18 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Apr 2009 18:17:01 -0000
Received: from amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Apr 2009 18:17:00 -0000
Message-ID: <1CAB722E203C456AB80B5905A7BAC6F7@Iulius>
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
Subject: Archived-At: header field
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:15:06 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-15"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 16869358305494171065
X-Ovh-Remote: 90.57.241.22 (amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi,

I see that RFC 5064 defines the Archived-At: header field for Netnews.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5064.txt

Shouldn't it be referenced somewhere in USEFOR?
(And maybe also in USEPRO? as a note in the gatewaying section?)

--
Julien ÉLIE

« On file à la bretonne. » (Astérix)

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n38GCVDh013162 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 09:12:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n38GCVoI013161; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 09:12:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from v-smtp-auth-relay-3.gradwell.net (v-smtp-auth-relay-3.gradwell.net [79.135.125.42]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n38GCJwP013117 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 09:12:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3$clerew$man#ac&uk) by v-smtp-auth-relay-3.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) id 49dccce2.4103.274 for [email-masked]; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:12:18 +0100 (envelope-sender )
Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id n38GC2Yf019632 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:12:02 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id n38GC2gf019625 for [email-masked]; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:12:02 +0100 (BST)
To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:25022
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey"
Subject: Re: Possible discrepancy in Path: header field example
Message-ID:
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
References: <3191BE530596486FB2D647512B5EB821@Iulius>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 12:54:30 GMT
Lines: 36
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

In <3191BE530596486FB2D647512B5EB821@Iulius> =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?= writes:

>Hi,

>In 3.2.2, the example is:

> Path: foo.isp.example!.SEEN.isp.example!!foo-news
> !.MISMATCH.2001:DB:0:0:8:800:200C:417A!bar.isp.example
> !!old.site.example!barbaz!!baz.isp.example
> !.POSTED.dialup123.baz.isp.example!not-for-mail

>I do not understand why foo.isp.example adds a "!" for
>foo-news. The third item in 3.2.1 does not allow that for "!.SEEN.".

Oops! And I have rechecked that section umpteen times :-( . Indeed, I
think that !.SEEN.isp.example!!foo-news is not even syntactially correct.
s/!!/!/

>By the way, in 3.2.2, there is also a missing double quote here:

> "not-for-mail is a common .

Good catch!

Russ, please fix these.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 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

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n38GCRlE013149 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 09:12:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n38GCRlB013147; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 09:12:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from v-smtp-auth-relay-6.gradwell.net (v-smtp-auth-relay-6.gradwell.net [79.135.125.112]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n38GCF3M013098 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 09:12:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster#pop3#clerew^man^ac$uk) by v-smtp-auth-relay-6.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) id 49dcccdd.71e5.2cc for [email-masked]; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:12:13 +0100 (envelope-sender )
Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id n38GC3J7019650 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:12:03 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id n38GC3K2019642 for [email-masked]; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:12:03 +0100 (BST)
To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:25023
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey"
Subject: Re: Use of message disposition notification
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Message-ID:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
References: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 12:58:53 GMT
Lines: 34
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

In <[email-masked]> Russ Allbery writes:

>Julien ÉLIE writes:

>> It SHOULD reject any proto-article which contains a header field
>> deprecated for Netnews (see, for example, [RFC3798] (Hansen, T. and
>> G. Vaudreuil, "Message Disposition Notification," May 2004.)).
>>
>> Is it really here that RFC 3798 is to be referenced? (And not USEFOR or
>> another RFC?) If yes, could it be better explained?

>It's an example of a header that's deprecated for Netnews, in this case
>precisely because it doesn't make any sense in Netnews. The RFC says
>somewhere in it that it's deprecated or not allowed in Netnews (I forget
>where).

RFC 3798 end of section 2.1:

Messages posted to newsgroups SHOULD NOT have a Disposition-
Notification-To header.

The reason is that it could be used to send mail bombs. I suppose we could
mention that reason in our Security Considerations.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 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

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n38GCRse013148 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 09:12:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n38GCRf5013146; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 09:12:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from v-smtp-auth-relay-2.gradwell.net (v-smtp-auth-relay-2.gradwell.net [79.135.125.41]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n38GCFZu013097 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 09:12:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster#pop3^clerew&man$ac#uk) by v-smtp-auth-relay-2.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) id 49dcccdd.77c5.159 for [email-masked]; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:12:13 +0100 (envelope-sender )
Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id n38GC2qb019620 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:12:02 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id n38GC1om019608 for [email-masked]; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:12:01 +0100 (BST)
To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:25021
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey"
Subject: Re: Possible typos
Message-ID:
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
References:
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:55:00 GMT
Lines: 77
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

In =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?= writes:

>In 2:

> Transports for Netnews articles MUST treat news articles as uninterpreted
> sequences of octets, excluding the values 0 (which may not occur in Netnews
> articles) and 13 and 10 (which MUST only appear in Netnews articles as a pair
> in that order and which together denote a line separator).

>Wouldn't it be better to write %x00, %x0D and %x0A?
>"and 13 and 10" -> not ", 13 and 10"?

I think I agree.

>In 3.3:

> Such a history database would grow without bound, however, so it is common
> and permitted to optimize based on the Injection-Date or Date header field
> of an article as follows.

>"to optimize it"? (I do not know whether "it" is mandatory or not in English there.)

Yes, I spotted that one and it grated a bit. The "it" is not mandatory,
but I agree it would read better with it in.

>In 3.6, the Injector-Info: header is mentioned. Isn't it Injection-Info:
>instead?

Yes. Many many drafts ago, the term _was_ Injector-Info, and this one seems
to have been overlooked.

>In 3.9:

> the leftmost unapproved newsgroup is is the leftmost moderated newsgroup
> in that field

>Only one "is".

+1

> Any Path header field MUST either be removed or truncated to only those entries
> following its "POSTED" , if any.

>Is it clear enough? "following" and not "preceding"? It depends on the direction
>we read the Path: header :)

Since the Path header is generated right to left, this confusion will
always be there, but I think "following" is correct, and I think that is
the usage elsewhere in the drafts.

>In 3.10.2:

> there is no one "official" gateway

>Is "one" correct here? (Probably yes, but better ask.)

Yes, that is correct.

>What if Original-Sender already exists? Is it renamed to X-Original-Sender (as 3.10.4
>seems to suggest)?

The re-re-sender needs to use his imagination! It is not actually
forbidden to have two Original-Senders, and he could add a comment if he
was that fussy. But I don't think we really care, so leave it be.

Those are my comments. I presume Russ will adopt them as he sees fit.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 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

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n38E7GmE000808 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 07:07:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n38E7FbR000807; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 07:07:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 39.mail-out.ovh.net (39.mail-out.ovh.net [213.251.138.60]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n38E73AJ000785 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 07:07:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 24142 invoked by uid 503); 8 Apr 2009 14:07:24 -0000
Received: from gw2.ovh.net (HELO mail146.ha.ovh.net) (213.251.189.202) by 39.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Apr 2009 14:07:24 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Apr 2009 14:07:04 -0000
Received: from amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 8 Apr 2009 14:07:00 -0000
Message-ID: <91D53A7F67F145D38CA721D3E9CA45AB@Iulius>
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
References:
In-Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Possible items for AUTH48
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 16:05:04 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 12647233654871358905
X-Ovh-Remote: 90.57.241.22 (amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi Charles,

> In section 3.5 (Duties of an injecting agent), Step 2, it states:
>
> "It MUST reject any proto-article ... that has a Path header field
> containing the "POSTED" ;..."
>
> That is inconsistent with the recently altered section 3.4.1
> (Proto-articles) which now states only that
>
> "the Path header field SHOULD NOT contain a "POSTED" ;"

Why not say in 3.5 that it MAY reject such an article (instead of MUST)?
It would be coherent with

"It MAY reject any proto-article that contains trace header fields"

> In section 5.4 (The Supersedes Header Field), it is not immediately clear
> whether an Approved header is needed, as with Group control messages.
> Diligent examination reveals that it is NOT required (and that is
> correct). But it might be kinder to add:
>
> NOTE: It is not required (except in moderated groups) for a Supersedes
> header field to be accompanied by an Approved header field.

I reckon it would be useful to add your suggested note.

> I have carefully noted all the places where [RFC2822] is mentioned, and it
> appears that they would all be equally applicable to RFC5822, which is on
> track to become a Draft Standard.

Isn't it RFC 5322?
RFC 5822 seems to be draft-hoffman-dac-vbr-04 and is not the same thing.

> As regards the USEFOR draft, which will also be up for AUTH 48 at the same
> time

When is AUTH 48?
Is there still some work on USEAGE? Why isn't it in the same state as USEFOR
and USEPRO? Was it abandoned ?

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Quand je raconterai mon odyssée, personne ne me croira ! » (Astérix)

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n37Lfob1028832 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:41:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n37LfobH028831; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:41:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 2.mail-out.ovh.net (2.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.26.226]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n37LfcJP028745 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:41:49 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 31849 invoked by uid 503); 7 Apr 2009 22:07:39 -0000
Received: from b7.ovh.net (HELO mail177.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.57) by 2.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 22:07:39 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 21:41:16 -0000
Received: from amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 21:41:13 -0000
Message-ID:
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
References: <3E8AE3D5F7314BBD856E8B278F99F76F@Iulius> <[email-masked]>
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Question about rejects by serving agents
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:39:43 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 14445577280560037305
X-Ovh-Remote: 90.57.241.22 (amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi Russ,

>> In 3.7, a serving agent "MUST reject any article that does not include
>> all the mandatory header fields or any article which contains header
>> fields that do not have valid contents".
>>
>> Is there a reason why a serving agent MUST reject such articles?
>
> Clients should be able to assume that the serving agent won't give them
> malformed articles. (This is kind of true of relaying agents as well, but
> since they only talk to serving agents, it's less critical.)

OK.

> Relaying agents are often very stupid and don't really look at the
> article. We wrote the standard to allow for this because they're
> speed-critical and some implementors don't like doing a full validation at
> that stage.

That makes sense. Thanks Russ.

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Ô temps suspends ton vol ! Et vous heures propices,
Suspendez votre cours. » (Alphonse de Lamartine)

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n37Jg5Eq022002 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:42:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n37Jg5B6022001; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:42:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from smtp4.stanford.edu (smtp4.Stanford.EDU [171.67.219.84]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n37JfsRH021984 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:42:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from smtp4.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 917A848659E for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.67.225.134]) by smtp4.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 727F5486530 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 049E1E7A19; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Usefor WG"
Subject: Re: Question about rejects by serving agents
In-Reply-To: <3E8AE3D5F7314BBD856E8B278F99F76F@Iulius> ("Julien =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C9LIE=22's?= message of "Tue\, 7 Apr 2009 20\:38\:14 +0200")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
References: <3E8AE3D5F7314BBD856E8B278F99F76F@Iulius>
From: Russ Allbery
Organization: The Eyrie
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:41:53 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Julien =C9LIE writes:

> In 3.7, a serving agent "MUST reject any article that does not include
> all the mandatory header fields or any article which contains header
> fields that do not have valid contents".
>
> Is there a reason why a serving agent MUST reject such articles?

If it served out such a message, it would be violating the protocol.
Clients should be able to assume that the serving agent won't give them
malformed articles. (This is kind of true of relaying agents as well, but
since they only talk to serving agents, it's less critical.)

> I understand that injecting agents MUST (because it happens at the
> beginning) but what surprises me is that it is a SHOULD for relaying
> agents.

Relaying agents are often very stupid and don't really look at the
article. We wrote the standard to allow for this because they're
speed-critical and some implementors don't like doing a full validation at
that stage.

--=20
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n37JBd0V020018 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:11:40 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n37JBd70020017; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:11:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 26.mail-out.ovh.net (26.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.27.225]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n37JBbmo020009 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:11:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 7364 invoked by uid 503); 7 Apr 2009 19:11:59 -0000
Received: from 42.mail-out.ovh.net (213.251.189.42) by 26.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 19:11:59 -0000
Received: (qmail 24628 invoked by uid 503); 7 Apr 2009 19:11:39 -0000
Received: from b6.ovh.net (HELO mail436.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.56) by 42.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 19:11:39 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 19:11:36 -0000
Received: from amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 19:11:34 -0000
Message-ID:
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
Subject: Possible typos
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 21:09:41 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-15"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 11918213465749585337
X-Ovh-Remote: 90.57.241.22 (amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi,

Here are a few remarks to improve the document.

In 2:

Transports for Netnews articles MUST treat news articles as uninterpreted
sequences of octets, excluding the values 0 (which may not occur in Netnews
articles) and 13 and 10 (which MUST only appear in Netnews articles as a pair
in that order and which together denote a line separator).

Wouldn't it be better to write %x00, %x0D and %x0A?
"and 13 and 10" -> not ", 13 and 10"?

In 3.3:

Such a history database would grow without bound, however, so it is common
and permitted to optimize based on the Injection-Date or Date header field
of an article as follows.

"to optimize it"? (I do not know whether "it" is mandatory or not in English there.)

In 3.6, the Injector-Info: header is mentioned. Isn't it Injection-Info: instead?

In 3.9:

the leftmost unapproved newsgroup is is the leftmost moderated newsgroup
in that field

Only one "is".

Any Path header field MUST either be removed or truncated to only those entries
following its "POSTED" , if any.

Is it clear enough? "following" and not "preceding"? It depends on the direction
we read the Path: header :)

In 3.10.2:

there is no one "official" gateway

Is "one" correct here? (Probably yes, but better ask.)

What if Original-Sender already exists? Is it renamed to X-Original-Sender (as 3.10.4
seems to suggest)?

--
Julien ÉLIE

« C'est souvent la femme qui nous inspire les grandes choses
qu'elles nous empêchent d'accomplir. » (Alexandre Dumas Fils)

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n37IfHkX017837 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:41:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n37IfHnS017836; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:41:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 26.mail-out.ovh.net (26.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.27.225]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n37IfFL6017825 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:41:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 29354 invoked by uid 503); 7 Apr 2009 18:41:38 -0000
Received: from 42.mail-out.ovh.net (213.251.189.42) by 26.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 18:41:38 -0000
Received: (qmail 669 invoked by uid 503); 7 Apr 2009 18:41:08 -0000
Received: from b6.ovh.net (HELO mail436.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.56) by 42.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 18:41:08 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 18:40:07 -0000
Received: from amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 18:40:07 -0000
Message-ID: <3E8AE3D5F7314BBD856E8B278F99F76F@Iulius>
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
Subject: Question about rejects by serving agents
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 20:38:14 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-15"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 11386788708801969593
X-Ovh-Remote: 90.57.241.22 (amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi,

In 3.7, a serving agent "MUST reject any article that does not include
all the mandatory header fields or any article which contains header
fields that do not have valid contents".

Is there a reason why a serving agent MUST reject such articles?
I understand that injecting agents MUST (because it happens at
the beginning) but what surprises me is that it is a SHOULD for
relaying agents.

Wouldn't it be better to have either MUST or SHOULD for both relaying
and serving agents? No need to relay the article if it MUST be
rejected at the end, isn't it?

--
Julien ÉLIE

« En voyant le lit vide, il le devint. » (Ponson du Terrail)

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n37HpHuc014381 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:51:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n37HpH3R014380; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:51:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.219.82]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n37Hp6Og014365 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:51:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id D5BC151C55D for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.67.225.134]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B172851C51C for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 58DE4E7A19; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Usefor WG"
Subject: Re: Use of message disposition notification
In-Reply-To: ("Julien =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C9LIE=22's?= message of "Tue\, 7 Apr 2009 19\:21\:07 +0200")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
References:
From: Russ Allbery
Organization: The Eyrie
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:51:05 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Julien =C9LIE writes:

> I read in 3.5 for an injected agent:
>
> It SHOULD reject any proto-article which contains a header field
> deprecated for Netnews (see, for example, [RFC3798] (Hansen, T. and
> G. Vaudreuil, "Message Disposition Notification," May 2004.)).
>
> How is it supposed to be used? I read in RFC 3798 that it is used to
> "report the disposition of a message after it has been successfully
> delivered". In our case, the message is rejected and not delivered.
>
> Is it really here that RFC 3798 is to be referenced? (And not USEFOR or
> another RFC?) If yes, could it be better explained?

It's an example of a header that's deprecated for Netnews, in this case
precisely because it doesn't make any sense in Netnews. The RFC says
somewhere in it that it's deprecated or not allowed in Netnews (I forget
where).

--=20
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n37HN38s012584 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:23:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n37HN3W3012583; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:23:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 26.mail-out.ovh.net (26.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.27.225]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n37HN2i8012576 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:23:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 2393 invoked by uid 503); 7 Apr 2009 17:23:24 -0000
Received: from 42.mail-out.ovh.net (213.251.189.42) by 26.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 17:23:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 3087 invoked by uid 503); 7 Apr 2009 17:23:03 -0000
Received: from b6.ovh.net (HELO mail436.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.56) by 42.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 17:23:03 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 17:23:00 -0000
Received: from amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 17:22:59 -0000
Message-ID:
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
Subject: Use of message disposition notification
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 19:21:07 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-15"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 10084403992116919737
X-Ovh-Remote: 90.57.241.22 (amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi,

I read in 3.5 for an injected agent:

It SHOULD reject any proto-article which contains a header field
deprecated for Netnews (see, for example, [RFC3798] (Hansen, T. and
G. Vaudreuil, "Message Disposition Notification," May 2004.)).

How is it supposed to be used? I read in RFC 3798 that it is used
to "report the disposition of a message after it has been successfully
delivered". In our case, the message is rejected and not delivered.

Is it really here that RFC 3798 is to be referenced? (And not USEFOR
or another RFC?)
If yes, could it be better explained?

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Rien, ce n'est pas rien ! La preuve, c'est que l'on peut le soustraire.
Exemple : rien moins rien = moins que rien ! » (Raymond Devos)

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n37GbbGI009767 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:37:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n37Gbbol009766; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:37:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from 26.mail-out.ovh.net (26.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.27.225]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n37GbPBq009756 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:37:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (qmail 13202 invoked by uid 503); 7 Apr 2009 16:37:47 -0000
Received: from 42.mail-out.ovh.net (213.251.189.42) by 26.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 16:37:47 -0000
Received: (qmail 4365 invoked by uid 503); 7 Apr 2009 16:37:27 -0000
Received: from b6.ovh.net (HELO mail436.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.56) by 42.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 16:37:27 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 16:37:24 -0000
Received: from amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) ([email-masked]) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 16:37:23 -0000
Message-ID: <3191BE530596486FB2D647512B5EB821@Iulius>
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?=
To: "Usefor WG"
Subject: Possible discrepancy in Path: header field example
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 18:35:21 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-15"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 9314288454695452089
X-Ovh-Remote: 90.57.241.22 (amontpellier-159-1-82-22.w90-57.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

Hi,

In 3.2.2, the example is:

Path: foo.isp.example!.SEEN.isp.example!!foo-news
!.MISMATCH.2001:DB:0:0:8:800:200C:417A!bar.isp.example
!!old.site.example!barbaz!!baz.isp.example
!.POSTED.dialup123.baz.isp.example!not-for-mail

I do not understand why foo.isp.example adds a "!" for
foo-news. The third item in 3.2.1 does not allow that for "!.SEEN.".

Is it a typo in 3.2.2, something to change in 3.2.1 or something
I misunderstand?

By the way, in 3.2.2, there is also a missing double quote here:

"not-for-mail is a common .

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Quès acco ? » (Caligulaminix)

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n374CTuU061604 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:12:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n374CTLi061603; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:12:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
Received: from v-smtp-auth-relay-5.gradwell.net (v-smtp-auth-relay-5.gradwell.net [79.135.125.99]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n374CGDj061578 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:12:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from [email-masked])
Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster&pop3$clerew^man*ac^uk) by v-smtp-auth-relay-5.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) id 49dad2a0.1b9d.72 for [email-masked]; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 05:12:16 +0100 (envelope-sender )
Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id n374C6VD009019 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 05:12:06 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id n374C5kl009016 for [email-masked]; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 05:12:05 +0100 (BST)
To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:25013
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey"
Subject: Possible items for AUTH48
Message-ID:
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:13:10 GMT
Lines: 72
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-ID:

I have now done a careful read through of USEPRO draft-14, and as fas as
the text goes, it seems in pretty good shape (which is not to say that I
agree with everything it says, since it is well known that I have serious
disagreements on two issues).

So here are the niggles that I have found, and that may be worth fixing:

My name, as a joint author, is given as "C. Lindsey". Since I have a
perfectly good middle initial, I would prefer "C. H. Lindsey".

In section 3.5 (Duties of an injecting agent), Step 2, it states:

"It MUST reject any proto-article ... that has a Path header field
containing the "POSTED" ;..."

That is inconsistent with the recently altered section 3.4.1
(Proto-articles) which now states only that

"the Path header field SHOULD NOT contain a "POSTED" ;"

Russ pointed out this anomaly a couple of months back, but since both the
Chair and the Area Director flatly refused any further discussion of the
issue, I am not holding my breath for it to be fixed. Neverteless, it
remains an anomaly.

In section 5.4 (The Supersedes Header Field), it is not immediately clear
whether an Approved header is needed, as with Group control messages.
Diligent examination reveals that it is NOT required (and that is
correct). But it might be kinder to add:

NOTE: It is not required (except in moderated groups) for a Supersedes
header field to be accompanied by an Approved header field.

In Appendix A (Changes to the Existing Protocols), there should be a
mention of the recently introduce Original-Sender header field.

I have carefully noted all the places where [RFC2822] is mentioned, and it
appears that they would all be equally applicable to RFC5822, which is on
track to become a Draft Standard.

As regards the USEFOR draft, which will also be up for AUTH 48 at the same
time, it would again be possible to update it to RFC5822 under the rules
governing AUTH48. This _would_ involve a change of text by way of a
considerable simplification off the complex (and now unnecessary) syntax
of . There is now only one very minor difference betwee USEFOR and
RFC5822 as regards the syntax of the Message-ID header field, namely that
it is forbidden to contain and '>' (or SP IIRC). That small difference
would be easy to describe - it is intended to permit quick and dirty
parsers of Message-ID to stop reading a message identifier as soon as they
encounter either a '>' or a SP. In practical terms neither of those
currently ever occurs in the middle of a in either News or Email,
so there are no real-world implications of tidying up the syntax of USEFOR
that way.

I would be happy to go through the whole of USEFOR and to docement exactly
that changes would be needed to enable it to reference RFC5822 in place of
RFC 2822. There is no other difference that springs immediately to mind
other than the one mentioned, but obviously it would need to be checked
carefully.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 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