From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Oct 2 11:38:48 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23236 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 11:38:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i92FQjdm034867 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:26:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i92FQjJJ034866 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:26:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from colo.khms.westfalen.de (Debian-exim@colo.khms.westfalen.de [213.239.196.208]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i92FQi4R034852 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:26:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kaih@khms.westfalen.de) Received: from khms.vpn ([10.172.192.2]:59701 helo=khms.westfalen.de ident=Debian-exim) by colo.khms.westfalen.de with asmtp (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA:16) (Exim 4.34) id 1CDlkX-0007BR-Kt for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:24:41 +0200 Received: from root (helo=khms.westfalen.de) by khms.westfalen.de with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CDlkM-0008Hb-Jz for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:24:30 +0200 Received: by khms.westfalen.de (CrossPoint v3.12d.kh14 R/C435); 02 Oct 2004 17:02:27 +0200 Date: 02 Oct 2004 12:05:00 +0200 From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Message-ID: <9I4pzYkXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> In-Reply-To: <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-01 X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh14 R/C435 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? References: <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail. X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote on 29.09.04 in <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>: > Control messages should not, in general, be crossposted to other > newsgroups than they one that they affect. That never seemed right to me. Surely group-list changing ones should be crossposted to a designated control message group for the hierarchy in question. >David Lawrence was the one who > first taught me the problems caused by doing so. For example, when people > form a habit of crossposting control messages to alt.config, someone > limiting what hierarchies in alt.* they receive, they still ends up > getting control messages for the hierarchies they don't want. Frankly, I have trouble coming up with a reason why that's bad. From where I sit, that's an intended result. MfG Kai From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Oct 2 15:37:26 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04993 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 15:37:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i92JQ4F0050330 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:26:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i92JQ4uV050329 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:26:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.Stanford.EDU (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.125]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i92JQ3D5050323 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:26:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i92JQ73o014843 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:26:07 -0700 Received: (qmail 9107 invoked by uid 1000); 2 Oct 2004 19:26:07 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-01 In-Reply-To: <9I4pzYkXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> (Kai Henningsen's message of "02 Oct 2004 12:05:00 +0200") References: <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9I4pzYkXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 12:26:07 -0700 Message-ID: <87acv4rkfk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Kai Henningsen writes: > rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote: >> Control messages should not, in general, be crossposted to other >> newsgroups than they one that they affect. > That never seemed right to me. Surely group-list changing ones should be > crossposted to a designated control message group for the hierarchy in > question. Why? What purpose does this serve? >> David Lawrence was the one who first taught me the problems caused by >> doing so. For example, when people form a habit of crossposting >> control messages to alt.config, someone limiting what hierarchies in >> alt.* they receive, they still ends up getting control messages for the >> hierarchies they don't want. > Frankly, I have trouble coming up with a reason why that's bad. From > where I sit, that's an intended result. Why? If I have all of my peers sending me alt.*,@alt.binaries.*, I don't want to get control messages for alt.binaries.* either. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From petergordon@zoomshare.com Sun Oct 3 19:16:30 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26092 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 19:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from taxis.dwdata.com (taxis.dwdata.com [216.33.93.235]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i93KIMb3051659 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:18:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from petergordon@zoomshare.com) Received: (qmail 96329 invoked by uid 832822484); 3 Oct 2004 19:23:13 -0000 Message-ID: <20041003192313.96328.qmail@taxis.dwdata.com> From: "petergordon" Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:23:13 -0500 (CDT) Subject: BUSINESS PROPOSAL!! X-Mailer: oMail 0.98.4 - http://webmail.omnis.ch X-IPAddress: 82.169.144.10 X-Sender: petergordon@zoomshare.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mr.Peter Gordons Imperial Bank. 140 Boeing Road East Elma Park Edenvale Gauteng 1610 Republic Of South Africa. Fax:+27:732:632:745 email:petergordons@netscape.net Dear Sir/Madam, I am Mr.Peter Gordon, Head: Enterprise Wide Risk and member of the executive and risk committees. of Imperial Bank, South Africa. This is an urgent and very confidential business proposition. On June 6, 2000,a Foreign Oil consultant/contractor with the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Mr.Stephen Garrick made a numbered time(Fixed) Deposit for twelve calendar months, valued at US$26,500,000.00,(Twenty-six Million, five hundred thousand Dollars). Upon maturity, I sent a routine notification to his forwarding address but got no reply. After a month, we sent a reminder and finally we discovered from his contract employers, the National Petroleum Corporation that Mr.Stephen Garrick died from an automobile accident. On further investigation, I found out that he died without making a "WILL", and all attempts to trace his next of kin was fruitless. I therefore made further investigation and discovered that Mr. Stephen Garrick did not declare any kin or relations in all his official documents, including his Bank Deposit paperwork in my Bank. This sum of US$26,500,000.00 has carefully been fixed in my bank for safekeeping. No one will ever come forward to claim it. According to South African Law, at the expiration of 5 (five) years, the money will revert to the ownership of the Government if nobody applies to claim the fund. Consequently, my proposal is that I will like you as a Foreigner to stand in as the owner of the money which was fixed deposited in my bank. I am writing you because I as a public servant, I cannot operate a foreign account. I want to present you as the owner of the funds so you can be able to claim them with the help of my attorney. This is simple. I will like you to provide immediately your full names,telephone/fax numbers and address, so that the Attorney will prepare the necessary documents which will put you in place as the beneficiary of the funds. The money will be moved out for us to share in the ratio of 80% for me and 20% for you. The paperwork for this transaction will be done by the Attorney If you are interested, please reply immediately via my email address and Upon your response, I shall then provide you with more details that will help you understand the transaction. Please observe utmost confidentiality, and be rest assured that this transaction would be most profitable for both of us because I shall require your assistance to invest my share in real estate within your country. Due to the nature of confidentiality in this Transaction our communication can only be via email and fax mostly. Awaiting your urgent reply via email. Thanks and my regards. Mr.Peter Gordon. PLEASE REPLY TO my FAX NUMBER OR EMAIL:petergordons@netscape.net From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Oct 3 19:19:00 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26257 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 19:19:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i93Jv5Me050324 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:57:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i93Jv5NN050323 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:57:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.1.74]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i93Jv4xZ050312 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:57:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sethb@panix.com) Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14419981EE for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 15:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i93Jv4o25662; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 15:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 15:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200410031957.i93Jv4o25662@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: ietf-usefor@imc.org In-reply-to: (message from John Stanley on Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:08:32 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: References: Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: John Stanley wrote: > "Charles Lindsey" : >>No, the poster cannot "define" how articles are to be displayed, but he >>can indicate his intention in the matter ... > > If he cannot control it, his intention of controlling it is > irrelevant. Not to me, as a reader. While I don't _have to_ display anything the way the poster wants, I will often _choose_ to _defer to_ the poster's wishes. > "I want ...". That's nice, but you don't get to say. Presenting it > as if there was some mechanism, when none exists, just leads to > foolish expectations. An expectation that is fulfilled, say, 98% of the time is far from "foolish". >>If you read the definition, some followups come from precursors and some >>come from the poster's display intentions. > > Since the "display intentions" are irrelevant, that part of the > definition is irrelevant. The "display intentions" are not irrelevant to me, as a reader, because my newsreader adheres to them 99.9+% of the time (that is, I seldom bother to override its defaults). Seth From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 4 10:28:11 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09419 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94EERWw038787 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 07:14:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94EER5F038786 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 07:14:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94EEQlh038780 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 07:14:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:14:26 +0100 Message-ID: <41615AC2.7030205@isode.com> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:14:26 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor Subject: Re: Issues with MIME-style parameters References: <412DEE02.1040604@erols.com> <415ABDFE.9080303@erols.com> In-Reply-To: <415ABDFE.9080303@erols.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020007080808030900050305" Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: --------------020007080808030900050305 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Bruce Lilly wrote: >Charles Lindsey wrote: > >[...] > >>So the >>possibility that there may one day be parameters in the Path header has >>changed nothing. >> >[...] > > >>why should it be used as an argument with >>Injection-Date? >> >> > >The WG Chair declared the matter of so-called "MIME" parameters >a closed issue on August 23, a full week before Charles' message >was composed, and more than a month before it was posted to the >mailing list. This is outrageous. Mr. Chairman, can we please >settle this issue once and for all. > Just to clarify, based on WG feedback, I've declared that there is no WG support for generic MIME-type parameters applicable to all *existing* and new headers. A new header can be designed to be extensible (including something that looks like MIME-style parameter), however the WG need to understand all "for" and "against" introducing extensibility for the header. Alexey --------------020007080808030900050305 Content-type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote:
Charles Lindsey wrote:

[...]  
So the
possibility that there may one day be parameters in the Path header has
changed nothing. 
[...]
  
why should it be used as an argument with
Injection-Date?
    

The WG Chair declared the matter of so-called "MIME" parameters
a closed issue on August 23, a full week before Charles' message
was composed, and more than a month before it was posted to the
mailing list.  This is outrageous.  Mr. Chairman, can we please
settle this issue once and for all.
Just to clarify, based on WG feedback, I've declared that there is no WG support for generic MIME-type parameters applicable to all *existing* and new headers.

A new header can be designed to be extensible (including something that looks like MIME-style parameter), however the WG need to understand all "for" and "against" introducing extensibility for the header.

Alexey

--------------020007080808030900050305-- From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 4 11:44:01 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15070 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:44:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94FV2mt044304 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:31:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94FV2sp044303 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:31:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from a.mail.peak.org (a.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.41]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94FV2xr044289 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:31:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by a.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i94FUv0l030289 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:30:57 -0700 (PDT) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Seth Breidbart : >> If he cannot control it, his intention of controlling it is >> irrelevant. >Not to me, as a reader. If you think you have some control, then you are ill informed. What you intend is nice, and it is nice that you think it is important to you, but your intention really is irrelevant, since there is no means for you to accomplish what you want. >While I don't _have to_ display anything the >way the poster wants, I will often _choose_ to _defer to_ the poster's >wishes. It's nice that you "choose" to defer, since you actually have no choice in the matter. If the user wants to display your message in 1 pt font in red blinking letters, there isn't anything you can do to stop it. >An expectation that is fulfilled, say, 98% of the time is far from >"foolish". An expectation based on SWAG numbers, with no mechanism to accomplish it in the first place, is foolish. >The "display intentions" are not irrelevant to me, as a reader, That's nice. Too bad you don't have a choice. >because my newsreader adheres to them 99.9+% of the time (that is, I >seldom bother to override its defaults). Oh, I see where you get your SWAG number. YOUR newsreader shows you things the way YOU want them 99% of the time, thus everyone elses shows them things the way you want them 99% of the time. Sorry, no. I bet mine doesn't show them your way even 1% of the time. Your average is down to 50%, and that's just after considering two readers. The fact remains: poster "intentions" on how messages are displayed, or in what order, are irrelevant simply because the expectation of control is specious. Better to teach people the truth than give them false expectations, which will lead them to come here expecting their intentions to be codified in the standard, as we are now seeing happen. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 4 13:22:45 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25301 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:22:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94HBcAm065242 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:11:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94HBcCm065241 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:11:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.1.74]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94HBage065231 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:11:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sethb@panix.com) Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB1D98203 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:11:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i94HBdf06942; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:11:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:11:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200410041711.i94HBdf06942@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: ietf-usefor@imc.org In-reply-to: (message from John Stanley on Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:30:57 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: References: Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: John Stanley wrote: > Seth Breidbart : >>> If he cannot control it, his intention of controlling it is >>> irrelevant. > >>Not to me, as a reader. > > If you think you have some control, then you are ill informed. What part of "me, as a reader" didn't you understand? The last word? > What you intend is nice, and it is nice that you think it is > important to you, but your intention really is irrelevant, since > there is no means for you to accomplish what you want. When I post, I _intend_ that others read my post. Obviously, I can't enforce that; does that mean that transmission of posts should be blocked entirely? When I post a followup in response to a specific article, with a References header, am I indicating that my article is part of a thread, or am I indicating my intention that my article be treated as part of that thread? >>While I don't _have to_ display anything the way the poster wants, I >>will often _choose_ to _defer to_ the poster's wishes. > > It's nice that you "choose" to defer, since you actually have no choice > in the matter. As the _reader_, I have _all_ the choice. >>The "display intentions" are not irrelevant to me, as a reader, > > That's nice. Too bad you don't have a choice. But I do. >>because my newsreader adheres to them 99.9+% of the time (that is, I >>seldom bother to override its defaults). > > Oh, I see where you get your SWAG number. YOUR newsreader shows you things > the way YOU want them 99% of the time, thus everyone elses shows them > things the way you want them 99% of the time. No, their newsreader shows them things the way they want. > Sorry, no. I bet mine doesn't show them your way even 1% of the > time. Your average is down to 50%, and that's just after considering > two readers. Really? If I put a References header into a new article, your newsreader (as you have it configured) won't show my article as part of the thread containing the messages referred to in that References header? And you think a significant fraction of other readers have their newsreaders configured similarly? > The fact remains: poster "intentions" on how messages are displayed, > or in what order, are irrelevant simply because the expectation of > control is specious. Let's remove the Newsgroups header, too, then, for the same reason. Seth From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 4 14:36:36 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01586 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:36:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94IPmLv082795 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:25:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94IPm0W082794 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:25:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kosat.consultit.no (sam.consultit.no [80.203.206.226]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94IPk1N082774 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:25:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivindt@multinet.no) Received: from tagseth-trd.consultit.no (182.80-202-209.nextgentel.com [80.202.209.182]) by kosat.consultit.no (Postfix) with SMTP id DCEDC7D3C for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:25:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by tagseth-trd.consultit.no (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:25:22 +0200 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:25:22 +0200 From: Eivind Tagseth To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Message-ID: <20041004182521.GA28583@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> Mail-Followup-To: Eivind Tagseth , ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <200410041711.i94HBdf06942@panix5.panix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200410041711.i94HBdf06942@panix5.panix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: * Seth Breidbart [2004-10-04 13:11:39 -0400]: > John Stanley wrote: > > What you intend is nice, and it is nice that you think it is > > important to you, but your intention really is irrelevant, since > > there is no means for you to accomplish what you want. > When I post a followup in response to a specific article, with a > References header, am I indicating that my article is part of a > thread, or am I indicating my intention that my article be treated as > part of that thread? You are indicating that your article and the article with the last message id in the References header has a child-parent relationship. Furthermore, you're saying that all message ids in the References header have an ancestry relationship to your article. And you're saying that the very first message id in the References header is the very first message of this ancestry lineage. I guess this isn't quite correct, as the References header may also contain message ids that are not decendants of the very first article (when replying to two different articles as once), or doesn't this ever happen? Isn't this what the references header really means? How to display the article in a news reader isn't really that relevant, the natural way to display articles having such relations comes from the meaning of the header, not vice versa. Are we really not able to describe the semantics of the references header without doing it backwards by describing the ui rather than the meaning. Eivind From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 4 16:26:27 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14688 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:26:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94KEkRn010341 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:14:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94KEkt6010340 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:14:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94KEjpX010328 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:14:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [213.116.56.3] (1Cust3.tnt104.lnd4.gbr.da.uu.net [213.116.56.3]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 21:14:47 +0100 Message-ID: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:03:36 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor Subject: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I would like to poll the WG about fate of the Complaints-To header. I would ask people to voice their opinion about the following question: should Complaints-To be standardized as described in section 6.20 of draft-ietf-usefor-article-13.txt? If the answer to this question is "yes", than it will be added to draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-01.txt. Otherwise I will reopen the discussion whether it should be an email address or an URL. Thanks, Alexey From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 4 17:41:33 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28865 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:41:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94LUciJ020660 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:30:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94LUc21020659 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:30:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.Stanford.EDU (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.125]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94LUbT7020651 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:30:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i94LUddn010912 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:30:40 -0700 Received: (qmail 5251 invoked by uid 1000); 4 Oct 2004 21:30:39 -0000 To: ietf-usefor Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> (Alexey Melnikov's message of "Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:03:36 +0100") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:30:39 -0700 Message-ID: <877jq6rx1c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Alexey Melnikov writes: > I would like to poll the WG about fate of the Complaints-To header. I > would ask people to voice their opinion about the following question: > should Complaints-To be standardized as described in section 6.20 of > draft-ietf-usefor-article-13.txt? > If the answer to this question is "yes", than it will be added to > draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-01.txt. Otherwise I will reopen the discussion > whether it should be an email address or an URL. I don't believe it should be standardized as described there. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 4 17:46:25 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29752 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:46:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94LZhaj020971 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94LZhFw020970 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94LZgtb020962 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i94LZecC015255; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:35:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i94LZeks015254; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:35:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:35:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > I would like to poll the WG about fate of the Complaints-To header. > I would ask people to voice their opinion about the following question: > should Complaints-To be standardized as described in section 6.20 of > draft-ietf-usefor-article-13.txt? 6.20 of article-13 looks good to me, let's do it that way. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 4 17:57:36 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00963 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:57:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94LkWbP021661 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:46:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94LkWOi021660 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:46:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from b.mail.peak.org (b.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.42]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94LkVPc021639 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:46:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by b.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i94LkTZh087133 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:46:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:46:29 -0700 (PDT) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Seth Breidbart : >While I don't _have to_ display anything the >way the poster wants, I will often _choose_ to _defer to_ the poster's >wishes. Sorry, the first time I read that I saw it as choosing to defer to the reader's wishes. The fact is, the only "poster's wish" that you can know is that he thinks some article is related to another. Whether that means he wants it displayed next to or above is difficult to tell, since there is no definition to guide anyone. You can defer to what you think the poster wants for display, but you are just guessing, and in any case, the poster doesn't have the control that this draft is trying to imply he has. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 4 18:03:34 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01792 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 18:03:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94LqeHG022025 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:52:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94Lqe9H022024 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:52:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94Lqd30022018 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:52:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [213.116.60.52] (1Cust52.tnt106.lnd4.gbr.da.uu.net [213.116.60.52]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 22:52:28 +0100 Message-ID: <4161C5F0.7000703@isode.com> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:51:44 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor Subject: USEFOR WG meeting in Washington, DC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Is there any interest to have an official WG slot at Washington, DC IETF? Please, let me know. Alexey From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 4 18:19:03 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03872 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 18:19:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94M82Zr022850 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:08:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94M82f4022849 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:08:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from a.mail.peak.org (a.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.41]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94M823R022841 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:08:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by a.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i94M810l095812 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:08:01 -0700 (PDT) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Seth Breidbart : >What part of "me, as a reader" didn't you understand? The last word? Already covered. And still, your deference to the poster is well and good, but guessing nonetheless, and not in any way universal. >When I post, I _intend_ that others read my post. Obviously, I can't >enforce that; Glad to see left field is still alive. The issue at hand is not whether they read your article or not, it is how your article is displayed when they read it. Do you have control over that? No. Is your "intent" worth much, given you have no control and no mechanism defined for describing your intent? No. >When I post a followup in response to a specific article, with a >References header, am I indicating that my article is part of a >thread, or am I indicating my intention that my article be treated as >part of that thread? Irrelevant question, since the issue is not "is this part of a thread", but "do you have control over how it is displayed?" >> Oh, I see where you get your SWAG number. YOUR newsreader shows you things >> the way YOU want them 99% of the time, thus everyone elses shows them >> things the way you want them 99% of the time. >No, their newsreader shows them things the way they want. Yes, exactly. So your control over how they see things is nada, and your intentions about same are meaningless. >Really? If I put a References header into a new article, your >newsreader (as you have it configured) won't show my article as part >of the thread containing the messages referred to in that References >header? It shows things the way I specify. If I say not to, you have no control. You certainly can't say "show this next to that". >> The fact remains: poster "intentions" on how messages are displayed, >> or in what order, are irrelevant simply because the expectation of >> control is specious. >Let's remove the Newsgroups header, too, then, for the same reason. Left field is active. I don't know what "same reason" you think applies, but the control of the newsgroups to which an article is posted IS the posters; how the article is displayed is up to the reader. The same kinds of arguments do not apply to the Newsgroups header. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 5 09:38:45 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27418 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:38:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i95DRGiN013675 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:27:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i95DRGhX013674 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:27:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i95DRGlR013667 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:27:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: 6J5jcvtjudc938dpQvexrg5ef6XVIppk7MEUdmNlIiI= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CEpLZ-00058k-00; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:27:17 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id i95DRGr0008393(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:27:16 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id i95DRFlX008392(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:27:16 -0400 Message-ID: <41628E2D.2060107@erols.com> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:06:05 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor Organization: Bruce Lilly User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Melnikov CC: ietf-usefor Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alexey Melnikov wrote: > should Complaints-To be standardized as described in section 6.20 of > draft-ietf-usefor-article-13.txt? No. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 5 10:25:33 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27419 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:38:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i95DR378013660 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:27:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i95DR39o013659 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:27:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i95DR2U5013652 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:27:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: 6J5jcvtjudcz0OH4NnYi0NLdZiOf+WfQjl22YFGiQ0g= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CEpLI-0002YL-00; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:27:00 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id i95DQvQw008389(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:26:57 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id i95DQuuF008388(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:26:56 -0400 Message-ID: <4162A120.20806@erols.com> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:26:56 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henry Spencer CC: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: relay checking References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Henry Spencer wrote: > To clarify my own position on this... > [...] > + I'm reluctant to demand full checking by relay agents which otherwise > don't have reason to do it. Even SHOULD seems too strong a word here. > > + I would *like* to see relay agents not only permitted, but explicitly > encouraged, to do as much checking as they feel they can. Since SHOULD carries the same weight as RECOMMENDED, either there is an inconsistency in your position or you believe that there is some significant difference between "RECOMMENDED" and encouraged. So please do clarify; how would an explicit recommendation not encourage relay agent authors to "do as much checking as they feel they can"? From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 5 15:19:39 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28553 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:19:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i95J8Neq043767 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:08:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i95J8NkV043766 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:08:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i95J8MB7043759 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:08:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i95J8DcC021726; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:08:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i95J8DSA021725; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:08:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:08:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: relay checking In-Reply-To: <4162A120.20806@erols.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Bruce Lilly wrote: > > + I'm reluctant to demand full checking by relay agents which otherwise > > don't have reason to do it. Even SHOULD seems too strong a word here. > > + I would *like* to see relay agents not only permitted, but explicitly > > encouraged, to do as much checking as they feel they can. > > Since SHOULD carries the same weight as RECOMMENDED... Most people believe that SHOULD (or the seldom-used RECOMMENDED) carries a lot of weight -- that it is not just a suggestion or an encouragement, but an emphatic recommendation that you disregard at your peril, although unusual circumstances may occasionally justify violating it. There are a few people who persist in claiming that it doesn't really mean that. My concern is to communicate, and therefore I use SHOULD with its consensus meaning. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 6 22:15:05 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11318 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:15:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972CbCh025879 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i972CbK6025878 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.201]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i972CaPl025861 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-68-121.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.68.121 with poptime) by smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 02:12:21 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CGm26067; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:16 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20212 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Issues with MIME-style parameters Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <412DEE02.1040604@erols.com> <415ABDFE.9080303@erols.com> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:10:46 GMT Lines: 32 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <415ABDFE.9080303@erols.com> Bruce Lilly writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >[...] >> So the >> possibility that there may one day be parameters in the Path header has >> changed nothing. >[...] >> why should it be used as an argument with >> Injection-Date? >The WG Chair declared the matter of so-called "MIME" parameters >a closed issue on August 23, a full week before Charles' message >was composed, and more than a month before it was posted to the >mailing list. This is outrageous. Mr. Chairman, can we please >settle this issue once and for all. The remark concerning the Path header was totally peripheral to the substance of what my message was about. I note that you have made no response to that substance. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 6 22:15:07 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11341 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:15:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972CQfi025818 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i972CQlG025815 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-5.gradwell.net (lon-mail-5.gradwell.net [193.111.201.131]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972CNh3025800 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) X-Gradwell-Debug: delivering mail for [ietf-usefor@imc.org] to mail.imc.org [208.184.76.43]:25 Received: from host81-144-68-121.midband.mdip.bt.net [81.144.68.121] by lon-mail-5.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.138) id 4164a60d.e777.17; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:29 +0100 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CLc26098; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:21 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20214 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <200409301656.i8UGqSOL005552@jefferson.patriot.net> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:23:37 GMT Lines: 27 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <200409301656.i8UGqSOL005552@jefferson.patriot.net> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" writes: >In , on 09/29/2004 > at 06:07 PM, "Charles Lindsey" said: >>OK, that is new wording, and it may yet disappear entirely. But the >>"MUST be identical" is indeed too severe. I have made a note to >>review it. >You could just add an additional phrse along the lines of "except as >requested by the reader." >For the most part I like your text as it is. Which seems to imply that you support retention of a "Duties of a Reading Agent" section broadly as I have suggested it. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 6 22:15:13 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11381 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:15:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972CR5C025828 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i972CRDS025827 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-5.gradwell.net (lon-mail-5.gradwell.net [193.111.201.131]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972CQIJ025809 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) X-Gradwell-Debug: delivering mail for [ietf-usefor@imc.org] to mail.imc.org [208.184.76.43]:25 Received: from host81-144-68-121.midband.mdip.bt.net [81.144.68.121] by lon-mail-5.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.138) id 4164a60f.e777.19; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:31 +0100 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CI826077; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:18 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20213 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-01 Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <87ekkomuxa.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87fz53mq54.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87u0tidz4a.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:20:41 GMT Lines: 119 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Charles Lindsey writes: >> We did discuss the text that says control messages need to have a >> Newsgroups-header that will steer them to the proper places, and the >> text you see contains some tweaks arising from that. >Control messages should not, in general, be crossposted to other >newsgroups than they one that they affect. David Lawrence was the one who >first taught me the problems caused by doing so. For example, when people >form a habit of crossposting control messages to alt.config, someone >limiting what hierarchies in alt.* they receive, they still ends up >getting control messages for the hierarchies they don't want. Indeed so, which is why our draft says you SHOULD include the affected group in the Newsgroups-header, and you MAY include others, but it then points out that this may cause other problems. However, it may sometimes be useful, and others have said as much in response to your message. >However, relay agents that check the Newsgroups header against a list of >valid groups *do* need to propagate control messages as if the group they >were affecting existed. *That* behavior does need to be specified in the >standard. This is independent of the question of whether one should >ignore the Newsgroups header on newgroup and rmgroup control messages >entirely. But if control messages are to be propagated regardless of what the Newsgroups-header says, then how is it that I do not see newgroup messages for jp.* and other hierarchies to which I do not subscribe? For sure someone upstream of me is filtering them out, so I can only suppose that some 'sys' files are being consulted somewhere in the process, but where? > I'm surprised that it's not in son-of-1036 and doesn't appear >to be in CNews, but perhaps both predate the understanding that this was >the right thing to do. This has been implemented in INN since the 1.0 >release in 1991. >If relay agents don't implement this behavior, booster rmgroups are >futile because they won't propagate past the first host that already >removed the group and newgroups won't propagate through relay agents that >don't act on them immediately and require that newsgroups exist before >propagating messages. This is clearly wrong. Sure, but different relay agents attack this problem in all sorts of different ways. For example, in CNews, it checks for the presence of a Control-header at an early stage, and immediately decides to file it in the 'control' newsgroup (which is always in the active file). So any control message received (i.e. which the upstream peer was somehow configured to send to it) will get stored regardless. Then, whenever a new article is stored it consults its 'sys' file to see which of its downstream peers it should send it to, and that of course is determined by what is in the article's Newsgroups-header. Note that 'sys' files are usually broadly written, disposing of complete (sub-)hierarchies using wildmat notation or similar. So, back when Tale first created 'humanities.misc', I think you will find that his Newsgroups-header will have contained at least token groups from sci, comp, news, talk, etc. Otherwise, it would never have propagated very far. >Well, I don't believe that's correct, but there's no point in arguing >about past history. I'm making that statement now. This should be part >of the standard. I think it is clear that we have to put _something_ in the standard about this, but I think we need to understand the range of practices that current relaying agents actually DO before writing any text. >> Even if relaying agents do not, as a matter of local policy, intend >> to honour certain control messages, they MUST still propagate them in >> the normal manner. >> [The inclusion of that paragraph still remains under discussion.] >This is still not correct. This doesn't help with the issue addressed >above in propagation of newgroup and rmgroup control messages and simply >contradicts other portions of the document in a fashion that leaves one >wondering what it's supposed to mean. Sure, but it's not supposed to be anything to do with the issues discussed above. It is concerned with agents that try to say "I am not going to create this group, so I am not going to tell you about it". > Please, remove this language and >just explain that newgroup and rmgroup control messages should always be >propagated as if the group they're affecting exists, even if it does not. I could easily be persuaded that the wording should come out, but at least let us remove it for the right reasons (e.g. that no current agent is so inconsiderate and mean as to do such a thing). >> Ah! I had always understood, since the matter was first raised on the >> news.admin.net-abuse groups, that it came out of the normal processing >> of the Path header rather than on special code in transport agents. >Nope. It was possible because of a pre-existing feature in INN (the path >aliasing concept predates pseudo-sites by quite some time), but path >aliasing is not really part of the normal processing of the Path header. OK. Thanks for that, though it implies that the trick would never have worked on CNews. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 6 22:29:24 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12176 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:29:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972SDBK026720 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:28:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i972SDOP026719 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:28:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.Stanford.EDU (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.125]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972SDJQ026710 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:28:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i972SGbP032252 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:28:17 -0700 Received: (qmail 14303 invoked by uid 1000); 7 Oct 2004 02:28:16 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-01 In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:20:41 GMT") References: <87ekkomuxa.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87fz53mq54.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87u0tidz4a.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:28:16 -0700 Message-ID: <871xgb9s8v.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey writes: > Russ Allbery writes: >> However, relay agents that check the Newsgroups header against a list >> of valid groups *do* need to propagate control messages as if the group >> they were affecting existed. *That* behavior does need to be specified >> in the standard. This is independent of the question of whether one >> should ignore the Newsgroups header on newgroup and rmgroup control >> messages entirely. > But if control messages are to be propagated regardless of what the > Newsgroups-header says, then how is it that I do not see newgroup > messages for jp.* and other hierarchies to which I do not subscribe? I am completely baffled by this reply. You seem to have not read what I have said. You don't get newgroup messages for jp.* because you are not being fed the jp.* hierarchy, and the only mention of "control messages are to be propagated regardless of what the Newsgroups-header says" is the text that's currently in USEPRO that I'm trying to get you to take *out*. Control messages MUST be propagated as if the newsgroup that they affect existed, even if it doesn't. It is occasionally additionally a good idea to behave as if the Newsgroups header contains only the newsgroup being affected, rather than whatever other random junk the poster has chosen to put in there, but that's a different topic. The important part is that if I post a newgroup message for news.misc, that newgroup message should propagate to any of my peers that would receive news.misc given their subscription patterns, even if that group doesn't actually exist. This is significant since normally, for speed, implementations like INN turn feed subscriptions into a hash table keyed on newsgroup name and listing all the sites that want to retrieve that newsgroup. This is an effective technique for nearly all traffic if you're maintaining an active file, but control messages cannot be handled this way, and INN pulls them out of normal feed processing and performs a special match of the affected group against the raw feed patterns instead. > So, back when Tale first created 'humanities.misc', I think you will > find that his Newsgroups-header will have contained at least token > groups from sci, comp, news, talk, etc. Otherwise, it would never have > propagated very far. How much money would you like to bet me? -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 6 23:00:55 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11319 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:15:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972CQLl025817 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i972CQ3F025816 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-5.gradwell.net (lon-mail-5.gradwell.net [193.111.201.131]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972CPOP025801 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) X-Gradwell-Debug: delivering mail for [ietf-usefor@imc.org] to mail.imc.org [208.184.76.43]:25 Received: from host81-144-68-121.midband.mdip.bt.net [81.144.68.121] by lon-mail-5.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.138) id 4164a60e.e777.18; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:30 +0100 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CNZ26118; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:23 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20215 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:45:51 GMT Lines: 57 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In John Stanley writes: >"Charles Lindsey" : >>The alternative text, which you did not quote, is >Didn't need to quote it, I thought. >>No, the poster cannot "define" how articles are to be displayed, but he >>can indicate his intention in the matter ... >If he cannot control it, his intention of controlling it is irrelevant. "I >want ...". That's nice, but you don't get to say. Presenting it as if >there was some mechanism, when none exists, just leads to foolish >expectations. Just like the foolish expectations that copyright notices in >the body of an article are going to change how Google or any other >automated news processor is going to work. The whole of this discussion started because it was reported that some FAQ writers had formed the habit of linking their multi-part FAQs together using References-headers, and a consensus developed that this practice was a Good Thing. But why did those FAQ writers start doing that? Because they saw that it would cause their parts to be presented in the correct order, at least in those reading agents which did threading (which was enough of them to be useful). In other words, they were indicating an intention of how they would like their articles displayed. Not guaranteed to work, but working often enough to be useful. >>>The alternative I suggested is still better. Why has it never appeared in >>>any form? >>You need to explain _why_ your wording is better. >I have, many times. On the other hand, I've not seen any explanation of >why your new alternative is better, it just appeared out of nowhere. And >now I've explained why YOUR wording is wrong. And I've just explained why it was right. Your move. All the remaining points raised in your message raise nothing that has not already been discussed on this list ad nauseam and received adequate answers, both from myself and from others. If other members of this list feel that any of your points are worth further discussion, then I am willing to reopen them. But not otherwise. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 6 23:13:24 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA14596 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:13:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i973CRfS029489 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i973CRSB029488 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.197]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i973CQck029463 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-71.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.71 with poptime) by smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 03:12:27 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CT326167; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:29 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20220 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: relay checking Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:28:06 GMT Lines: 40 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In Henry Spencer writes: >On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Russ Allbery wrote: >> I thought Henry and I just agreed on language, and I'm curious as to why >> you decided to go with this language instead... >> I don't see a lot of purpose served in distinguishing between existence >> and syntactic validity of headers. I think that makes the logic of the >> standard slightly more complex for no particularly clear reason. >To clarify my own position on this... >+ I see a small benefit from insisting on presence of mandatory headers, >but only a small one. It's unobjectionable but not very important. I have written SHOULD. >+ I'm reluctant to demand full checking by relay agents which otherwise >don't have reason to do it. Even SHOULD seems too strong a word here. I have written MAY. >+ I would *like* to see relay agents not only permitted, but explicitly >encouraged, to do as much checking as they feel they can. Not sure I want to encourage too hard. It could be a severe performance penalty. And I agree that SHOULD is far too strong. >+ I don't care deeply about the issue, and could live with any wording >that permits full checking but doesn't require it. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 6 23:13:26 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA14630 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:13:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i973CS1i029498 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i973CSNH029497 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.197]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i973CRQN029464 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-71.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.71 with poptime) by smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 03:12:28 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CR726157; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:27 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20218 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Usefor/usepro conflicts. Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <87zn38syzu.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:23:15 GMT Lines: 47 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87zn38syzu.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Charles Lindsey writes: >> OK, I now have: >> A "poster" is the person or software that composes a possibly >> compliant article for submission to a posting agent. The poster is >> synonymous with [RFC 2822]'s author. >I believe this is wrong. Poster is synonymous with sender. Well "poster" is the word we have used in the draft all along, and I worry that some subtle change of meaning will ensue if we change it now. Any more opinions on this one? And, as someone else observed, "poster" is used as a keyword in Followup-To and in Mail-Copies-To, and in both those places it means the From/Reply-To guy. >>> The word in standard usage implies "the person who posts", which is >>> different than "the person who writes", so as a synonym, it belongs to >>> "sender". >> But the term as widely used throughout Usenet is as I have defined it. >I strongly disagree. Everywhere that I've seen poster used on Usenet in a >context that drew the distinction between author and transmitter, poster >referred to the person who injected the article, not the author. Yes, and in any case in the draft where that distinction is important we need to be careful, as in the following case: >> Posting agents meant for use by ordinary posters SHOULD reject any >> attempt to post an article which cancels or Supersedes another >> article of which the poster is not the author or sender. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 7 00:00:55 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA14599 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:13:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i973COGG029472 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i973CO3F029471 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.197]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i973CN3V029461 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-71.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.71 with poptime) by smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 03:12:24 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CSO26162; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:28 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20219 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:25:54 GMT Lines: 29 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >Hi, >I would like to poll the WG about fate of the Complaints-To header. >I would ask people to voice their opinion about the following question: >should Complaints-To be standardized as described in section 6.20 of >draft-ietf-usefor-article-13.txt? >If the answer to this question is "yes", than it will be added to >draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-01.txt. Otherwise I will reopen the discussion >whether it should be an email address or an URL. Yes. But note that Complaints-To comes as a pair with Injection-Info. Also, I would have no problem with a URL as an alternative, but _only_ if that URL were limited to 'mailto'. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 7 00:00:56 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA14598 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:13:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i973CQgQ029481 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i973CQwK029480 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.197]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i973COGl029462 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-71.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.71 with poptime) by smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 03:12:26 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CQR26148; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:26 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20217 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: relay checking Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:14:37 GMT Lines: 31 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In Henry Spencer writes: >On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> 3. It SHOULD reject any article that does not have the correct >> mandatory headers (section a-5) present. >Why "correct"? That seems redundant, and it is bound to make people >wonder whether it has some special significance. I'd take that word out. Because that word has been there all along. But I take your point. 3. It SHOULD reject any article that does not include all the mandatory headers (section a-5). And likewise for serving agents. There was also a similar use of "correct" in relation to injecting agents and proto-articles, where I have changed it to "proper". >Otherwise, this seems okay. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 7 00:00:56 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA14609 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:13:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i973CV4l029506 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i973CVgR029505 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.197]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i973CUXJ029474 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-71.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.71 with poptime) by smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 03:12:31 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CPd26135; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:25 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20216 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <200410041711.i94HBdf06942@panix5.panix.com> <20041004182521.GA28583@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:02:47 GMT Lines: 47 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <20041004182521.GA28583@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> Eivind Tagseth writes: >You are indicating that your article and the article with the last >message id in the References header has a child-parent relationship. >Furthermore, you're saying that all message ids in the References header >have an ancestry relationship to your article. And you're saying that >the very first message id in the References header is the very first >message of this ancestry lineage. >I guess this isn't quite correct, as the References header may also contain >message ids that are not decendants of the very first article (when >replying to two different articles as once), or doesn't this ever >happen? We have explicitly said we do not cover the case of followups to multiple articles, and RFC 2822 says much the same thing for email. OTOH, if you do make such a followup and manually create a References-header in a plausible way, then most current threading agents will probably manage to do something sensible with it. >Isn't this what the references header really means? How to display >the article in a news reader isn't really that relevant, the natural >way to display articles having such relations comes from the meaning >of the header, not vice versa. I think the two things go hand in hand. There would be little point in having the References header if it were not intended to be used for threading. >Are we really not able to describe the semantics of the references >header without doing it backwards by describing the ui rather >than the meaning. But I agree that some semantics in the USEFOR document would be a good addition to the detailed instructions in USEPRO as to how to contruct it, and I intend to look into this. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 7 07:58:58 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07809 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 07:58:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97Bucj4082824 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 04:56:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i97BucN3082823 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 04:56:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97BuYp7082809 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 04:56:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CFWsn-0008MZ-00 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:56:29 +0200 Received: from du-001-107.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.107]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:56:29 +0200 Received: from nobody by du-001-107.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:56:29 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Usefor/usepro conflicts. Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:55:16 +0200 Organization: Lines: 28 Message-ID: <41652EA4.40E6@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <87zn38syzu.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-107.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: >>> "poster" is the person or software that composes a possibly >>> compliant article for submission to a posting agent. The >>> poster is synonymous with [RFC 2822]'s author. >> I believe this is wrong. Poster is synonymous with sender. > Well "poster" is the word we have used in the draft all > along, and I worry that some subtle change of meaning will > ensue if we change it now. Any more opinions on this one? > And, as someone else observed, "poster" is used as a keyword > in Followup-To and in Mail-Copies-To, and in both those > places it means the From/Reply-To guy. "Poster" is as you say the From/Reply-To guy. That's the same as the 2822-Sender. It's generally the same as the 2822-From (author), but not always. Likewise the poster is generally the author, but not always (sometimes FAQs are written by A, but posted by B, where A is the author, and B is a posting-Bot run by somebody else). I'm not sure about this, but a news From is not always exactly the same as a 2822-From, a news From is more like a MAIL FROM. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 7 08:13:32 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA09610 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:13:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97CCPLK084006 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 05:12:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i97CCPtB084005 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 05:12:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97CCNgL083996 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 05:12:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CFX8D-0000To-00 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:12:25 +0200 Received: from du-001-107.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.107]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:12:25 +0200 Received: from nobody by du-001-107.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:12:25 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:09:49 +0200 Organization: Lines: 15 Message-ID: <4165320D.157F@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <200410041711.i94HBdf06942@panix5.panix.com> <20041004182521.GA28583@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-107.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > There would be little point in having the References header > if it were not intended to be used for threading. Depends, my UA certainly uses it for threading, but it also displays the "References:" in a way suited for a "See-Also:" literal meaning of references. Especially if I select its "options -> show headers -> brief". Of course both attempts (threading and "See-Also:") can fail, and the main purpose of references from my POV is threading. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 7 11:42:16 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28006 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:42:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97Fd6De003455 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:39:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i97Fd66U003454 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:39:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97Fd501003447 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:39:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: wwvnFyfMpUbSJ7cH+G4aB0MsHwYCNl628XXpbM4f1hM= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CFaMG-0003qP-00; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 11:39:08 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id i97Fd4qa020135(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:39:04 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id i97Fd3Nk020133(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:39:03 -0400 Message-ID: <41656316.5060504@erols.com> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 11:39:02 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henry Spencer CC: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: relay checking References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Henry Spencer wrote: > I'm a little reluctant to use SHOULD for any of this, because that keyword > is generally understood to mean that the action in question is nearly > mandatory, No, it's understood to be a recommendation (and in fact the term explicitly and by definition carries the same weight as the adjective RECOMMENDED); MUST and MUST NOT are mandates (for conforming implementations -- and there is no enforcement, so even those terms are not terribly forceful). > I think the right choice is either to say MAY with some accompanying words > urging people to do it, The term MAY is generally used for clarification where an implementor might misinterpret some normative text as precluding something which is in fact not intended to be precluded. Any other use of the term tends to be vacuous since it is generally permitted to do anything that is not explicitly proscribed. > or to say SHOULD but accompany it with an escape > hatch like "to the extent that performance requirements permit". I don't have a problem with that, but let's make sure the right wording is used; let's not speak of performance requirements where performance is not the major issue. We also ought to recognize several different instances where different fields might be checked. Some fields are checked at injection time and are supposed to remain unaltered during transport. It would probably be unreasonable to demand routine checks of such fields at every relay agent, and given the protocol specifications (viz. checked once at injection time and remaining unaltered thereafter) there is only a small point (see below) in recommending checks. There is no reason to prohibit such checks. On the other hand, there are fields (e.g. Path) which are modified during transport, and which are used in the protocol (at least by some implementations, as discussed). It is not unreasonable to recommend that these fields be checked, so as to be able to pinpoint the agent responsible for screwing up syntax or similar errors. The questions then are what might reasonably be checked, when, and by whom. At minimum, if a field is to be checked, the part which should have been modified by the preceding (upstream) agent should be checked. If checking is a mere recommendation, then it is possible that that upstream agent did no checking of what was modified by its upstream neighbor and so on, so it might be prudent to check everything that might have been modified since injection. Such checks (of modifications made by predecessors) should probably be performed on receipt, before other processing, so as to avoid attempting to process broken articles. There is little point in an agent attempting to check its own modifications prior to sending an article downstream, since an author's error in interpretation of requirements when modifying a field is likely to be repeated when checking. It is also conceivable that an injection agent may have made an error, so there is no reason to preclude a relay agent from checking parts of fields that might have been set at injection time, or entire fields that are supposed to be set at injection and remain unmodified thereafter. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 7 12:02:14 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29774 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:02:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97G15t0004898 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:01:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i97G15N0004897 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:01:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from a.mail.peak.org (a.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.41]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97G14c4004876 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:01:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by a.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i97G10UD060096 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:01:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:01:00 -0700 (PDT) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: "Charles Lindsey" : >The whole of this discussion started because it was reported that some FAQ >writers had formed the habit of linking their multi-part FAQs together >using References-headers, and a consensus developed that this practice was >a Good Thing. Umm, this discussion started when I read the document listed in the subject and saw a silly alternative definition for a word that implied a level of control over something that did not exist. >But why did those FAQ writers start doing that? Because they saw that it >would cause their parts to be presented in the correct order, at least in >those reading agents which did threading (which was enough of them to be >useful). And which reading agents did they see this in? Their own. Keep in mind, they get to control how they see things, so the fact that they can control how they see things is no big surprise. It is their ability to control how OTHER PEOPLE see things that is the question, and which they lack. >And I've just explained why it was right. Your move. No, you explained why someone has unfounded expectations about something they do being able to control other people's display of articles. Unfounded expectations are not a reason to change a definition. However, the fact that they DO use the header to indicate relationships that are just outside the old definition are a reason to change it, if one it truly documenting existing practice. It's just not correct to imply that their desire to indicate a relationship actually has some basis in controlling the display of articles. That implication is the problem with the alternate definition you have provided. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 7 12:08:10 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00441 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:08:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97G7IoP005248 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:07:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i97G7IVm005247 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:07:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from b.mail.peak.org (b.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.42]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97G7III005234 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:07:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by b.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i97G7FjZ035737 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:07:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:07:15 -0700 (PDT) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Usefor/usepro conflicts. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: "Charles Lindsey" : >Well "poster" is the word we have used in the draft all along, and I worry >that some subtle change of meaning will ensue if we change it now. Any >more opinions on this one? Just as I did for the word "followup" and found nothing really changed, nothing really changes for the word "poster", since most of the standard deals with the actions of posting and what happens from thereon, and not much with the content of the body, which is the author's responsibility. >And, as someone else observed, "poster" is used as a keyword in Followup-To >and in Mail-Copies-To, and in both those places it means the From/Reply-To >guy. Yes, this is the only point I found that would be in error, but since it is current practice, it seems a bit late to change that to "author". It is also pretty much harmless, and can easily be covered by a simple statement that "yes, we know it ought to be 'author', but its usage is historical and we're just going to live with it this way". From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 7 12:12:23 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00804 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:12:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97GBKXT005505 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:11:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i97GBKEI005504 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:11:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from b.mail.peak.org (b.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.42]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97GBJPO005493 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:11:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by b.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i97GBHjZ037338 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:11:17 -0700 (PDT) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: relay checking Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Henry Spencer : >Most people believe that SHOULD (or the seldom-used RECOMMENDED) carries a >lot of weight -- that it is not just a suggestion or an encouragement, but >an emphatic recommendation that you disregard at your peril, although >unusual circumstances may occasionally justify violating it. >There are a few people who persist in claiming that it doesn't really mean >that. My concern is to communicate, and therefore I use SHOULD with its >consensus meaning. Unfortunately, every standard that uses SHOULD proclaims somewhere within that they use SHOULD as it is defined in RFC2119. There is no mention of "peril" or "emphatic" in that standard. Not even the implication. Wouldn't it be nice if the "consensus" meaning actually matched the consensus meaning that was achieved when RFC2119 was adopted? I mean, if the authors of RFC2119 MEANT the strength of force that Henry's "consensus" says, they could have said so themselves. Since they did not, it seems clear to me that they didn't intend any such force. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 7 12:15:11 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00973 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:15:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97GD0Lm005619 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:13:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i97GD0ES005617 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:13:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i97GCw14005599 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:12:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-64-212.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.64.212 with poptime) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 16:12:29 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i97GCFF00222; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 17:12:15 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20222 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-01 Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <87ekkomuxa.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87fz53mq54.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87u0tidz4a.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <871xgb9s8v.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:26:57 GMT Lines: 43 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <871xgb9s8v.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Control messages MUST be propagated as if the newsgroup that they affect >existed, even if it doesn't. It is occasionally additionally a good idea >to behave as if the Newsgroups header contains only the newsgroup being >affected, rather than whatever other random junk the poster has chosen to >put in there, but that's a different topic. The important part is that if >I post a newgroup message for news.misc, that newgroup message should >propagate to any of my peers that would receive news.misc given their >subscription patterns, even if that group doesn't actually exist. Right! That last sentence is the bit that was missing from your previous explanations of what INN actually did. There clearly had to be a 'sys' file (however called) somewhere in the chain that controlled what actually went to your downstream peers. >This is significant since normally, for speed, implementations like INN >turn feed subscriptions into a hash table keyed on newsgroup name and >listing all the sites that want to retrieve that newsgroup. This is an >effective technique for nearly all traffic if you're maintaining an active >file, but control messages cannot be handled this way, and INN pulls them >out of normal feed processing and performs a special match of the affected >group against the raw feed patterns instead. OK, it is useful to know that, but I can still see variants on that technique that would work equally well. Anyway, for the final question, what about transit-only systems that keep no active file, nor any permenent store of articles? Do they need to take any special note of Control-headers, or do they just propagate them like ordinary articles, as determined by the Newsgroups-headers plus their peers' subscription information? -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 7 16:52:11 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25512 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 16:52:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97KonkQ026467 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:50:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i97KoneR026466 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:50:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.Stanford.EDU (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97KomKe026459 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:50:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i97Koqk1031457 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:50:53 -0700 Received: (qmail 5874 invoked by uid 1000); 7 Oct 2004 20:50:52 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-01 In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:26:57 GMT") References: <87ekkomuxa.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87fz53mq54.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87u0tidz4a.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <871xgb9s8v.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:50:52 -0700 Message-ID: <87vfdm45hv.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey writes: > Anyway, for the final question, what about transit-only systems that > keep no active file, nor any permenent store of articles? Do they need > to take any special note of Control-headers, or do they just propagate > them like ordinary articles, as determined by the Newsgroups-headers > plus their peers' subscription information? I think either approach works. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Oct 8 12:14:14 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08130 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:14:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i98GCtUL049651 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i98GCtTb049649 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i98GCrC0049633 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-148.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.148 with poptime) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2004 16:12:34 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i98GCDT08490; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 17:12:13 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20231 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Usefor/usepro conflicts. Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <87zn38syzu.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41652EA4.40E6@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:00:59 GMT Lines: 39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41652EA4.40E6@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> And, as someone else observed, "poster" is used as a keyword >> in Followup-To and in Mail-Copies-To, and in both those >> places it means the From/Reply-To guy. >"Poster" is as you say the From/Reply-To guy. That's the same >as the 2822-Sender. I think not. In the oft-quoted case where the Boss gets his Secretary to send the message, the Secretary is the Sender, but the Boss is the From. The Reply-To may be either of them, or even a third person. > ... Likewise the poster is generally the >author, but not always (sometimes FAQs are written by A, but >posted by B, where A is the author, and B is a posting-Bot run >by somebody else). B is the Sender. If the FAQ contains Followup-To: poster, then followups would be mailed to A (assuming he is the From/Reply-To). >I'm not sure about this, but a news From is not always exactly >the same as a 2822-From, a news From is more like a MAIL FROM. No, I think that is wrong. The MAIL FROM is where you send reports of non-delivery and the like, which will usually be the Sender. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Oct 8 12:59:47 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08133 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:14:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i98GCtmX049650 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i98GCtUe049648 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i98GCrJ9049632 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-148.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.148 with poptime) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2004 16:12:33 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i98GCE208494; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 17:12:14 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20232 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <200410041711.i94HBdf06942@panix5.panix.com> <20041004182521.GA28583@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> <4165320D.157F@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:04:27 GMT Lines: 25 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <4165320D.157F@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Depends, my UA certainly uses it for threading, but it also >displays the "References:" in a way suited for a "See-Also:" >literal meaning of references. Especially if I select its >"options -> show headers -> brief". Yes, I sometimes look at the References header if I want to view some precursor in its un-snipped form. >Of course both attempts (threading and "See-Also:") can fail, >and the main purpose of references from my POV is threading. But yes, the "main purpose" is threading. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Oct 8 12:59:47 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08132 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:14:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i98GCtpN049667 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i98GCtAr049665 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i98GCsbI049635 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-148.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.148 with poptime) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2004 16:12:36 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i98GCFU08498; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 17:12:15 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20233 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: relay checking Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41656316.5060504@erols.com> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:23:48 GMT Lines: 63 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41656316.5060504@erols.com> Bruce Lilly writes: >Henry Spencer wrote: >> I'm a little reluctant to use SHOULD for any of this, because that keyword >> is generally understood to mean that the action in question is nearly >> mandatory, >No, it's understood to be a recommendation (and in fact the term >explicitly and by definition carries the same weight as the >adjective RECOMMENDED); MUST and MUST NOT are mandates (for >conforming implementations -- and there is no enforcement, so >even those terms are not terribly forceful). Indeed, but "RECOMMENDATION" is usually taken as something more than mere "recommendation". The phrase Henry would use (and I have seen it used also by yourself) is that SHOULD is a "strong recommendation" not lightly to be ignored, and RFC 2119 supports that interpretation. >> or to say SHOULD but accompany it with an escape >> hatch like "to the extent that performance requirements permit". >I don't have a problem with that, but let's make sure the >right wording is used; let's not speak of performance >requirements where performance is not the major issue. But the question here relates to the behaviour of relaying agents, where performance is THE major issue. >We also ought to recognize several different instances where >different fields might be checked. Some fields are checked >at injection time and are supposed to remain unaltered >during transport. Indeed, and that is the case here. These headers are supposed to have been checked already by an injecting agent (but there are some dodgy injecting agents out there). > ... On the >other hand, there are fields (e.g. Path) which are modified >during transport, and which are used in the protocol (at >least by some implementations, as discussed). It is >not unreasonable to recommend that these fields be checked, >so as to be able to pinpoint the agent responsible for >screwing up syntax or similar errors. But again, there is a performance hit here. What relaying agents do in practice, I suspect, is just to extract anything that looks like a path-identity and do a crude comparison with the identity of the site it is about to relay to. No great harm arises if it gets it wrong occasionally. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Oct 9 04:25:11 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA25838 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 2004 04:25:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i998NS5Z090875 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:23:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i998NSjF090874 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:23:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i998NNgY090806 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:23:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CGCVh-0006Dq-00 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:23:25 +0200 Received: from 212.82.251.67 ([212.82.251.67]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:23:25 +0200 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.67 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:23:25 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Usefor/usepro conflicts. Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:22:35 +0200 Organization: Lines: 33 Message-ID: <41679FCB.72B1@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <87zn38syzu.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41652EA4.40E6@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.67 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > In the oft-quoted case where the Boss gets his Secretary to > send the message, the Secretary is the Sender, but the Boss > is the From. Sorry, I should have looked into the normative reference (for my parallel universe ;-), you're right, I was confused: (5.2) | The From header contains the electronic address, and possi- | bly the full name, of the article's author: (6.4) | The Sender header identifies the poster, in the event that | this differs from the author identified in the From header: [...] | In the absence of Sender, the default poster is the author | (named in the From header). (10.4) | The Sender header is a tricky case, one where mailing-list | and post-by-mail practice should differ. For gatewaying | mailing lists, the mailing-list host should be considered a | relayer, and the From and Sender headers supplied in its | transmissions left strictly untouched. For post-by-mail, as | for a moderator posting a mailed submission, the Sender | header should reflect the poster rather than the author. If | a post-by-mail gateway receives a message with its own | Sender header, it might wish to preserve the content in an | X-Sender header. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 12 10:46:31 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26004 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:46:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9CEho9k039289 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:43:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9CEhoHJ039288 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:43:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9CEhnlN039279 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:43:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: F/GYF4dqrElHTfCzRoHnG4cDEPt50Q/QdiMEchDQUFU= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CHNsd-0003HW-00; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:43:59 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id i9CEhxIw005303(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:43:59 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id i9CEhrFI005302(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:43:53 -0400 Message-ID: <416BD4F8.1050205@erols.com> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:58:32 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor Organization: Bruce Lilly User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Lindsey CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Subject: Re: Issues with MIME-style parameters References: <412DEE02.1040604@erols.com> <415ABDFE.9080303@erols.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > The remark concerning the Path header was totally peripheral to the > substance of what my message was about. I note that you have made no > response to that substance. Yet. As you took more than a month to respond to the original message, don't be so quick to note responses. At the moment, I have many far more important things to do than to respond to imaginary "substance" in your self-contradictory ramblings. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Oct 17 13:10:09 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08089 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:10:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9HH7wNZ023283 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:07:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9HH7w3Y023282 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:07:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9HH7wu6023274 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:07:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: BNCexjMrAqC1u1x+ODKbnZB90taFh2fzPzDKu2slO7A= Received: from [12.40.110.79] (helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.42 #5) id 1CJEVl-0004gb-BG; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:08:01 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id i9HH7niA005178(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:07:54 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id i9HH7i7P005153(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:07:53 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Russ Allbery Subject: Re: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-01 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 11:49:04 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9IYKznMXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <87vfdjeo20.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <87vfdjeo20.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200410171149.05316.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [Incidentally, the original was apparently sent only to the old mailing list rather than the "new" (as of a couple of months ago) mailing list] On Sat October 9 2004 14:36, you wrote: > Kai Henningsen writes: > > > That sounds to me like a very special case. It seems to me it's much > > more likely that you have your peers send you, say, a certain subset of > > the Big8, and you want to get all the Big8 control messages, not just > > that subset, so you can decide what other groups you might be interested > > in. > > Note that this has never been possible for the Big Eight, and I've never > heard a complaint about it. You're the first person who I recall > indicating that you'd prefer things be done that way, rather than only > sending control messages according to normal newsgroup subscription > patterns. [...] > (This is probably more detailed than we really need to cover in our > documents, but it is a good argument in favor of not banning crossposting > control messages.) We probably need to cover more detail; let's start with examining the pros and cons for the different types of control messages: So far you folks have been discussing newgroup messages, but there are other types. The considerations vary based on the control message type. Cancels could safely be limited to the newsgroup subscription patterns *assuming* that newsgroups are specified exactly the same on the cancel as in the original, *and* further assuming that there have been no changes to newsgroup hierarchies in the time interval between posting of the original and cancel messages, *and* still further assuming that no site has changed newsgroup feed patterns in such a way (e.g. dropping newsgroups) that would prevent a cancel message from reaching a system that had received the original. I suspect that in a small but significant portion of cases, one or more of those assumptions would fail to conform to reality. I believe that the specific mechanism specified in RFC 1036 is reasonable; viz. propagate widely initially, stopping propagation to downstream sites unless the original message had been received. Rmgroup messages, the newfangled mvgroup messages, newgroup and checkgroups messages should probably propagate everywhere. Otherwise a site that gets its initial list of active newsgroups e.g. via ftp from some source would not be kept up to date w.r.t. changes in hierarchies (additions, renaming, removals, changes in suggested moderation status) if upstream sites fail to propagate relevant control messages when newsgroups directly affected are not fed. That in turn could affect downstrean sites that subsequently get the out-of-date active newsgroup list from the site in question, administrators and users of that site may be unaware of changes to newsgroups of potential interest (e.g. for finding an alternate upstream feed for new groups of interest), and sites with out-of-date lists may unintentionally become sources of problems (e.g. crossposts to "old" newsgroups that have been removed or renamed). Ihave and sendme control messages should only propagate one hop regardless of newsgroup subscriptions. Generally, pseudo- newsgroups are set up by administrators to implement that, but the rule should be specified; implementation details are just that -- implementation details. Sendsys control messages are intended to gather statistics about connectivity and newsgroup distribution. If limited to newsgroup hierarchies, then gathered connectivity statistics will obviously only represent a subset of sites to which the control message propagates. That is probably A Bad Thing for connectivity (as distinct from newsgroup propagation) statistics. Causing those control messages to propagate widely in order to gather more complete statistics requires crossposting to a huge number of newsgroups, which would likely cause some breakage (I suspect that some software would be unable to handle a Newsgroups field listing 30,000 newsgrousp). On the other hand, collecting newsgroup propagation statistics could be achieved even if propagation of the control message is limited; conversely if it is not limited the only downside is the volume of the responses sent to the requestor. I believe sendsys control messages should therefore propagate everywhere, unless superseded by two distinct types of control messages for the two specific purposes (viz. connectivity in general, and specific newsgroup hierarchy propagation). Version control messages are intended to gather statistics on transport/spooling software, and is likely only to be of use to a requestor if reasonably complete (e.g. to definitively answer the question "is anybody still running B news 2.11?"). It should therefore propagate widely (i.e. independently of newsgroups). Other considerations: Since different types of control messages are handled differently and affect different agents in different ways, we should probably consider whether a long term split of the catch-all Control field would be worth planning for (i.e. while keeping the catch-all Control field name tag with a separate "verb" in the field for the moment, advising implementors that at some future date there may well be separate fields to facilitate the different types of propagation and the different handling by different agents). From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 18 15:11:33 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14261 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:11:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9IJ9eHM086866 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:09:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9IJ9eCf086865 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:09:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9IJ9dZx086855 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:09:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:09:41 +0100 Message-ID: <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:09:41 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Hi, > I would like to poll the WG about fate of the Complaints-To header. > I would ask people to voice their opinion about the following > question: should Complaints-To be standardized as described in section > 6.20 of draft-ietf-usefor-article-13.txt? > > If the answer to this question is "yes", than it will be added to > draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-01.txt. Otherwise I will reopen the > discussion whether it should be an email address or an URL. Could I ask people who answered "yes" to this question to list software that generates this header? Thanks, Alexey From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 19 08:09:06 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA15735 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9JC7l98055636 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 05:07:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9JC7lqN055635 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 05:07:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.204]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i9JC7jp2055617 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 05:07:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from chl@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-66-10.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.66.10 with poptime) by smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 2004 12:07:41 -0000 Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id i9JBqjE09856 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:52:46 +0100 (BST) To: "Usefor WG" Subject: Header Table Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:52:37 +0100 From: "Charles Lindsey" Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=----------p274O9WLZJUvIFimG3INvK MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (SunOS, build 751) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: ------------p274O9WLZJUvIFimG3INvK Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Our Chair has asked me to produce this table showing where the various Netnews headers are generated and where they are consumed. Hopefully, this may be useful in our discussions, and maybe it should evan appear as an Appendix in one of the drafts. It needs to be viewed in a wide window, or in landscape if prented (there is a FF character at a suitable place). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      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 ------------p274O9WLZJUvIFimG3INvK Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=header-use Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=header-use Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Table showing Generation and Consumption of Netnews Headers. ------------------------------------------------------------ Notation -------- G (C, U) indicate where the header is normally Generated (Checked[1], Used). g (c, u) indicate where the header is occasionally generated (checked, used). Header poster posting inject- relay- serv- reading follow- reply reader special gateway gateway moder- agent ing ing ing agent up agent scripts in out ator [2] [2] agent agent agent agent [3] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Used in Transit ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID - g G U U - - - - - c/g c - Newsgroups G g C/U[4] U C/U U g[5] - u - G - U Path - g[6] G U/G U/G - - - - - - - C Injection-Date - - C/G U U - - - - - - U C Distribution G g - U U u g[5] - - - - - - Control G - - u[7] U - - - - - - C g Approved G - U[4] u U - - - - - - - G Supersedes G - - u[7] U - - - - - - - - Expires G - - - U - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Used for Reading/Followup/Reply ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From g G g C/g C - - U U - - - - Reply-To g G - - - - - U - - - - - Followup-To G - - - - - U - - - - - - Mail-Copies-To - G - - - - U U - - - - - References g - - - - U U/G - - - - - - Xref - - - - G U - - - - - - - Content-* G G g - - U - - - - U U - Header poster posting inject- relay- serv- reading follow- reply reader special gateway gateway moder- agent ing ing ing agent up agent scripts in out ator [2] [2] agent agent agent agent [3] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Used by humans and special scripts ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date - G C[8] C[8] C[8] u - - U - g U c/g Subject G - C - C u g[5] - U - - - - Sender - G - - - - - u U U G - - Organization - G g - - - - - U - - - - Keywords G - - - - - - - U U - - - Summary G - - - - - - - U - - - - Posted-And- - G - - - - G - U - - - - Mailed Archive - G - - - - - - - U - - - Lines - G - - - - - - U - - - - User-Agent - G g - - - - - U - - - - Injection-Info - - C/G - - - - - u U - - C Complaints-To - - C/G - - - - - U U - - C Notes ----- [1] Checking is usually just for the presence of absence of the header. [2] Shown under poster if a per-article affair; Shown under posting agent if normally set automatically/by configuration. [3] For operations not part of the normal duties of the regular agents, but which need to rely on the structure and semantics of the header. In addition. just about any header may be used in a killfile. [4] To detect moderated articles already approved. [5] Defaults set by followup agent. [6] Posting agent may set . [7] For articles arriving later than their cancels. Also to ensure further propagation of group control messages. [8] For detecting >24 hours into the future, or when Injection-Date absent. ------------p274O9WLZJUvIFimG3INvK-- From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 19 22:15:10 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA16576 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:15:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9K2CQqw087409 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9K2CQg1087408 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.204]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i9K2CPZ0087385 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:12:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host62-172-24-61.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@62.172.24.61 with poptime) by smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Oct 2004 02:12:25 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i9K2CCB17774 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:12:12 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20241 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:57:44 GMT Lines: 39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> Hi, >> I would like to poll the WG about fate of the Complaints-To header. >> I would ask people to voice their opinion about the following >> question: should Complaints-To be standardized as described in section >> 6.20 of draft-ietf-usefor-article-13.txt? >> >> If the answer to this question is "yes", than it will be added to >> draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-01.txt. Otherwise I will reopen the >> discussion whether it should be an email address or an URL. >Could I ask people who answered "yes" to this question to list software >that generates this header? No software generates this header, but lots of software generates the X-Complaints-To header (and for email too, I believe), which is essentially identical (but we cannot standardize X-headers). No regular agent needs to recognize it, but doubtless lots of people (spam fighters and the like) have scripts which use it; It would be trivial to modify such scripts to recognize Complaints-To alongside X-Complaints-To. A similar relation exists between the new Archive header and the current X-No-Archive header (but only Google actually uses this header, so far as anyone knows, and there have been hints that Google would likely recognize the new one alongside the old one). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 27 12:07:36 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18806 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:07:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RG5PYp096004 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:05:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9RG5P51096003 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:05:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RG5LCj095996 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:05:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CMqIe-0001qO-00 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:05:24 +0200 Received: from c-134-93-16.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.93.16]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:05:24 +0200 Received: from nobody by c-134-93-16.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:05:24 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:04:56 +0200 Organization: Lines: 10 Message-ID: <417FC728.78B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-93-16.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Could I ask people who answered "yes" to this question to > list software that generates this header? At the moment you'd only find X-Complaints-To: (used by many news servers). IMHO the idea is to get rid of the "X-" here. Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RG5PYp096004 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:05:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9RG5P51096003 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:05:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RG5LCj095996 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:05:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CMqIe-0001qO-00 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:05:24 +0200 Received: from c-134-93-16.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.93.16]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:05:24 +0200 Received: from nobody by c-134-93-16.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:05:24 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:04:56 +0200 Organization: Lines: 10 Message-ID: <417FC728.78B7@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-93-16.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Could I ask people who answered "yes" to this question to > list software that generates this header? At the moment you'd only find X-Complaints-To: (used by many news servers). IMHO the idea is to get rid of the "X-" here. Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9K2CQqw087409 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9K2CQg1087408 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.204]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i9K2CPZ0087385 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:12:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host62-172-24-61.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@62.172.24.61 with poptime) by smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Oct 2004 02:12:25 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i9K2CCB17774 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:12:12 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20241 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:57:44 GMT Lines: 39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> Hi, >> I would like to poll the WG about fate of the Complaints-To header. >> I would ask people to voice their opinion about the following >> question: should Complaints-To be standardized as described in section >> 6.20 of draft-ietf-usefor-article-13.txt? >> >> If the answer to this question is "yes", than it will be added to >> draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-01.txt. Otherwise I will reopen the >> discussion whether it should be an email address or an URL. >Could I ask people who answered "yes" to this question to list software >that generates this header? No software generates this header, but lots of software generates the X-Complaints-To header (and for email too, I believe), which is essentially identical (but we cannot standardize X-headers). No regular agent needs to recognize it, but doubtless lots of people (spam fighters and the like) have scripts which use it; It would be trivial to modify such scripts to recognize Complaints-To alongside X-Complaints-To. A similar relation exists between the new Archive header and the current X-No-Archive header (but only Google actually uses this header, so far as anyone knows, and there have been hints that Google would likely recognize the new one alongside the old one). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9JC7l98055636 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 05:07:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9JC7lqN055635 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 05:07:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.204]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i9JC7jp2055617 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 05:07:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from chl@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-66-10.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.66.10 with poptime) by smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 2004 12:07:41 -0000 Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id i9JBqjE09856 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:52:46 +0100 (BST) To: "Usefor WG" Subject: Header Table Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:52:37 +0100 From: "Charles Lindsey" Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=----------p274O9WLZJUvIFimG3INvK MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (SunOS, build 751) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: ------------p274O9WLZJUvIFimG3INvK Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Our Chair has asked me to produce this table showing where the various Netnews headers are generated and where they are consumed. Hopefully, this may be useful in our discussions, and maybe it should evan appear as an Appendix in one of the drafts. It needs to be viewed in a wide window, or in landscape if prented (there is a FF character at a suitable place). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      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 ------------p274O9WLZJUvIFimG3INvK Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=header-use Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=header-use Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Table showing Generation and Consumption of Netnews Headers. ------------------------------------------------------------ Notation -------- G (C, U) indicate where the header is normally Generated (Checked[1], Used). g (c, u) indicate where the header is occasionally generated (checked, used). Header poster posting inject- relay- serv- reading follow- reply reader special gateway gateway moder- agent ing ing ing agent up agent scripts in out ator [2] [2] agent agent agent agent [3] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Used in Transit ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID - g G U U - - - - - c/g c - Newsgroups G g C/U[4] U C/U U g[5] - u - G - U Path - g[6] G U/G U/G - - - - - - - C Injection-Date - - C/G U U - - - - - - U C Distribution G g - U U u g[5] - - - - - - Control G - - u[7] U - - - - - - C g Approved G - U[4] u U - - - - - - - G Supersedes G - - u[7] U - - - - - - - - Expires G - - - U - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Used for Reading/Followup/Reply ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From g G g C/g C - - U U - - - - Reply-To g G - - - - - U - - - - - Followup-To G - - - - - U - - - - - - Mail-Copies-To - G - - - - U U - - - - - References g - - - - U U/G - - - - - - Xref - - - - G U - - - - - - - Content-* G G g - - U - - - - U U - Header poster posting inject- relay- serv- reading follow- reply reader special gateway gateway moder- agent ing ing ing agent up agent scripts in out ator [2] [2] agent agent agent agent [3] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Used by humans and special scripts ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date - G C[8] C[8] C[8] u - - U - g U c/g Subject G - C - C u g[5] - U - - - - Sender - G - - - - - u U U G - - Organization - G g - - - - - U - - - - Keywords G - - - - - - - U U - - - Summary G - - - - - - - U - - - - Posted-And- - G - - - - G - U - - - - Mailed Archive - G - - - - - - - U - - - Lines - G - - - - - - U - - - - User-Agent - G g - - - - - U - - - - Injection-Info - - C/G - - - - - u U - - C Complaints-To - - C/G - - - - - U U - - C Notes ----- [1] Checking is usually just for the presence of absence of the header. [2] Shown under poster if a per-article affair; Shown under posting agent if normally set automatically/by configuration. [3] For operations not part of the normal duties of the regular agents, but which need to rely on the structure and semantics of the header. In addition. just about any header may be used in a killfile. [4] To detect moderated articles already approved. [5] Defaults set by followup agent. [6] Posting agent may set . [7] For articles arriving later than their cancels. Also to ensure further propagation of group control messages. [8] For detecting >24 hours into the future, or when Injection-Date absent. ------------p274O9WLZJUvIFimG3INvK-- Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9IJ9eHM086866 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:09:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9IJ9eCf086865 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:09:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9IJ9dZx086855 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:09:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:09:41 +0100 Message-ID: <417414F5.6020500@isode.com> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:09:41 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Hi, > I would like to poll the WG about fate of the Complaints-To header. > I would ask people to voice their opinion about the following > question: should Complaints-To be standardized as described in section > 6.20 of draft-ietf-usefor-article-13.txt? > > If the answer to this question is "yes", than it will be added to > draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-01.txt. Otherwise I will reopen the > discussion whether it should be an email address or an URL. Could I ask people who answered "yes" to this question to list software that generates this header? Thanks, Alexey Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9HH7wNZ023283 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:07:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9HH7w3Y023282 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:07:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9HH7wu6023274 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:07:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: BNCexjMrAqC1u1x+ODKbnZB90taFh2fzPzDKu2slO7A= Received: from [12.40.110.79] (helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.42 #5) id 1CJEVl-0004gb-BG; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:08:01 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id i9HH7niA005178(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:07:54 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id i9HH7i7P005153(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:07:53 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly To: Russ Allbery Subject: Re: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-01 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 11:49:04 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9IYKznMXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <87vfdjeo20.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <87vfdjeo20.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200410171149.05316.blilly@erols.com> Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: [Incidentally, the original was apparently sent only to the old mailing list rather than the "new" (as of a couple of months ago) mailing list] On Sat October 9 2004 14:36, you wrote: > Kai Henningsen writes: > > > That sounds to me like a very special case. It seems to me it's much > > more likely that you have your peers send you, say, a certain subset of > > the Big8, and you want to get all the Big8 control messages, not just > > that subset, so you can decide what other groups you might be interested > > in. > > Note that this has never been possible for the Big Eight, and I've never > heard a complaint about it. You're the first person who I recall > indicating that you'd prefer things be done that way, rather than only > sending control messages according to normal newsgroup subscription > patterns. [...] > (This is probably more detailed than we really need to cover in our > documents, but it is a good argument in favor of not banning crossposting > control messages.) We probably need to cover more detail; let's start with examining the pros and cons for the different types of control messages: So far you folks have been discussing newgroup messages, but there are other types. The considerations vary based on the control message type. Cancels could safely be limited to the newsgroup subscription patterns *assuming* that newsgroups are specified exactly the same on the cancel as in the original, *and* further assuming that there have been no changes to newsgroup hierarchies in the time interval between posting of the original and cancel messages, *and* still further assuming that no site has changed newsgroup feed patterns in such a way (e.g. dropping newsgroups) that would prevent a cancel message from reaching a system that had received the original. I suspect that in a small but significant portion of cases, one or more of those assumptions would fail to conform to reality. I believe that the specific mechanism specified in RFC 1036 is reasonable; viz. propagate widely initially, stopping propagation to downstream sites unless the original message had been received. Rmgroup messages, the newfangled mvgroup messages, newgroup and checkgroups messages should probably propagate everywhere. Otherwise a site that gets its initial list of active newsgroups e.g. via ftp from some source would not be kept up to date w.r.t. changes in hierarchies (additions, renaming, removals, changes in suggested moderation status) if upstream sites fail to propagate relevant control messages when newsgroups directly affected are not fed. That in turn could affect downstrean sites that subsequently get the out-of-date active newsgroup list from the site in question, administrators and users of that site may be unaware of changes to newsgroups of potential interest (e.g. for finding an alternate upstream feed for new groups of interest), and sites with out-of-date lists may unintentionally become sources of problems (e.g. crossposts to "old" newsgroups that have been removed or renamed). Ihave and sendme control messages should only propagate one hop regardless of newsgroup subscriptions. Generally, pseudo- newsgroups are set up by administrators to implement that, but the rule should be specified; implementation details are just that -- implementation details. Sendsys control messages are intended to gather statistics about connectivity and newsgroup distribution. If limited to newsgroup hierarchies, then gathered connectivity statistics will obviously only represent a subset of sites to which the control message propagates. That is probably A Bad Thing for connectivity (as distinct from newsgroup propagation) statistics. Causing those control messages to propagate widely in order to gather more complete statistics requires crossposting to a huge number of newsgroups, which would likely cause some breakage (I suspect that some software would be unable to handle a Newsgroups field listing 30,000 newsgrousp). On the other hand, collecting newsgroup propagation statistics could be achieved even if propagation of the control message is limited; conversely if it is not limited the only downside is the volume of the responses sent to the requestor. I believe sendsys control messages should therefore propagate everywhere, unless superseded by two distinct types of control messages for the two specific purposes (viz. connectivity in general, and specific newsgroup hierarchy propagation). Version control messages are intended to gather statistics on transport/spooling software, and is likely only to be of use to a requestor if reasonably complete (e.g. to definitively answer the question "is anybody still running B news 2.11?"). It should therefore propagate widely (i.e. independently of newsgroups). Other considerations: Since different types of control messages are handled differently and affect different agents in different ways, we should probably consider whether a long term split of the catch-all Control field would be worth planning for (i.e. while keeping the catch-all Control field name tag with a separate "verb" in the field for the moment, advising implementors that at some future date there may well be separate fields to facilitate the different types of propagation and the different handling by different agents). Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9CEho9k039289 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:43:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9CEhoHJ039288 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:43:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9CEhnlN039279 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:43:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: F/GYF4dqrElHTfCzRoHnG4cDEPt50Q/QdiMEchDQUFU= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CHNsd-0003HW-00; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:43:59 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id i9CEhxIw005303(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:43:59 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id i9CEhrFI005302(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:43:53 -0400 Message-ID: <416BD4F8.1050205@erols.com> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:58:32 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor Organization: Bruce Lilly User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Lindsey CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org; Subject: Re: Issues with MIME-style parameters References: <412DEE02.1040604@erols.com> <415ABDFE.9080303@erols.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > The remark concerning the Path header was totally peripheral to the > substance of what my message was about. I note that you have made no > response to that substance. Yet. As you took more than a month to respond to the original message, don't be so quick to note responses. At the moment, I have many far more important things to do than to respond to imaginary "substance" in your self-contradictory ramblings. Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i998NS5Z090875 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:23:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i998NSjF090874 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:23:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i998NNgY090806 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:23:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CGCVh-0006Dq-00 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:23:25 +0200 Received: from 212.82.251.67 ([212.82.251.67]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:23:25 +0200 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.67 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:23:25 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Usefor/usepro conflicts. Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:22:35 +0200 Organization: Lines: 33 Message-ID: <41679FCB.72B1@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <87zn38syzu.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41652EA4.40E6@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.67 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > In the oft-quoted case where the Boss gets his Secretary to > send the message, the Secretary is the Sender, but the Boss > is the From. Sorry, I should have looked into the normative reference (for my parallel universe ;-), you're right, I was confused: (5.2) | The From header contains the electronic address, and possi- | bly the full name, of the article's author: (6.4) | The Sender header identifies the poster, in the event that | this differs from the author identified in the From header: [...] | In the absence of Sender, the default poster is the author | (named in the From header). (10.4) | The Sender header is a tricky case, one where mailing-list | and post-by-mail practice should differ. For gatewaying | mailing lists, the mailing-list host should be considered a | relayer, and the From and Sender headers supplied in its | transmissions left strictly untouched. For post-by-mail, as | for a moderator posting a mailed submission, the Sender | header should reflect the poster rather than the author. If | a post-by-mail gateway receives a message with its own | Sender header, it might wish to preserve the content in an | X-Sender header. Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i98GCtmX049650 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i98GCtUe049648 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i98GCrJ9049632 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-148.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.148 with poptime) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2004 16:12:33 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i98GCE208494; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 17:12:14 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20232 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <200410041711.i94HBdf06942@panix5.panix.com> <20041004182521.GA28583@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> <4165320D.157F@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:04:27 GMT Lines: 25 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <4165320D.157F@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Depends, my UA certainly uses it for threading, but it also >displays the "References:" in a way suited for a "See-Also:" >literal meaning of references. Especially if I select its >"options -> show headers -> brief". Yes, I sometimes look at the References header if I want to view some precursor in its un-snipped form. >Of course both attempts (threading and "See-Also:") can fail, >and the main purpose of references from my POV is threading. But yes, the "main purpose" is threading. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i98GCtpN049667 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i98GCtAr049665 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i98GCsbI049635 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-148.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.148 with poptime) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2004 16:12:36 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i98GCFU08498; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 17:12:15 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20233 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: relay checking Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <41656316.5060504@erols.com> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:23:48 GMT Lines: 63 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41656316.5060504@erols.com> Bruce Lilly writes: >Henry Spencer wrote: >> I'm a little reluctant to use SHOULD for any of this, because that keyword >> is generally understood to mean that the action in question is nearly >> mandatory, >No, it's understood to be a recommendation (and in fact the term >explicitly and by definition carries the same weight as the >adjective RECOMMENDED); MUST and MUST NOT are mandates (for >conforming implementations -- and there is no enforcement, so >even those terms are not terribly forceful). Indeed, but "RECOMMENDATION" is usually taken as something more than mere "recommendation". The phrase Henry would use (and I have seen it used also by yourself) is that SHOULD is a "strong recommendation" not lightly to be ignored, and RFC 2119 supports that interpretation. >> or to say SHOULD but accompany it with an escape >> hatch like "to the extent that performance requirements permit". >I don't have a problem with that, but let's make sure the >right wording is used; let's not speak of performance >requirements where performance is not the major issue. But the question here relates to the behaviour of relaying agents, where performance is THE major issue. >We also ought to recognize several different instances where >different fields might be checked. Some fields are checked >at injection time and are supposed to remain unaltered >during transport. Indeed, and that is the case here. These headers are supposed to have been checked already by an injecting agent (but there are some dodgy injecting agents out there). > ... On the >other hand, there are fields (e.g. Path) which are modified >during transport, and which are used in the protocol (at >least by some implementations, as discussed). It is >not unreasonable to recommend that these fields be checked, >so as to be able to pinpoint the agent responsible for >screwing up syntax or similar errors. But again, there is a performance hit here. What relaying agents do in practice, I suspect, is just to extract anything that looks like a path-identity and do a crude comparison with the identity of the site it is about to relay to. No great harm arises if it gets it wrong occasionally. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i98GCtUL049651 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i98GCtTb049649 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i98GCrC0049633 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:12:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-148.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.148 with poptime) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2004 16:12:34 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i98GCDT08490; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 17:12:13 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20231 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Usefor/usepro conflicts. Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <87zn38syzu.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <41652EA4.40E6@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:00:59 GMT Lines: 39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <41652EA4.40E6@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> And, as someone else observed, "poster" is used as a keyword >> in Followup-To and in Mail-Copies-To, and in both those >> places it means the From/Reply-To guy. >"Poster" is as you say the From/Reply-To guy. That's the same >as the 2822-Sender. I think not. In the oft-quoted case where the Boss gets his Secretary to send the message, the Secretary is the Sender, but the Boss is the From. The Reply-To may be either of them, or even a third person. > ... Likewise the poster is generally the >author, but not always (sometimes FAQs are written by A, but >posted by B, where A is the author, and B is a posting-Bot run >by somebody else). B is the Sender. If the FAQ contains Followup-To: poster, then followups would be mailed to A (assuming he is the From/Reply-To). >I'm not sure about this, but a news From is not always exactly >the same as a 2822-From, a news From is more like a MAIL FROM. No, I think that is wrong. The MAIL FROM is where you send reports of non-delivery and the like, which will usually be the Sender. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97KonkQ026467 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:50:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i97KoneR026466 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:50:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.Stanford.EDU (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97KomKe026459 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:50:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i97Koqk1031457 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:50:53 -0700 Received: (qmail 5874 invoked by uid 1000); 7 Oct 2004 20:50:52 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-01 In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:26:57 GMT") References: <87ekkomuxa.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87fz53mq54.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87u0tidz4a.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <871xgb9s8v.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:50:52 -0700 Message-ID: <87vfdm45hv.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey writes: > Anyway, for the final question, what about transit-only systems that > keep no active file, nor any permenent store of articles? Do they need > to take any special note of Control-headers, or do they just propagate > them like ordinary articles, as determined by the Newsgroups-headers > plus their peers' subscription information? I think either approach works. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97GD0Lm005619 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:13:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i97GD0ES005617 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:13:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i97GCw14005599 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:12:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-64-212.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.64.212 with poptime) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 16:12:29 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i97GCFF00222; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 17:12:15 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20222 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-01 Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <87ekkomuxa.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87fz53mq54.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87u0tidz4a.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <871xgb9s8v.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:26:57 GMT Lines: 43 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <871xgb9s8v.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Control messages MUST be propagated as if the newsgroup that they affect >existed, even if it doesn't. It is occasionally additionally a good idea >to behave as if the Newsgroups header contains only the newsgroup being >affected, rather than whatever other random junk the poster has chosen to >put in there, but that's a different topic. The important part is that if >I post a newgroup message for news.misc, that newgroup message should >propagate to any of my peers that would receive news.misc given their >subscription patterns, even if that group doesn't actually exist. Right! That last sentence is the bit that was missing from your previous explanations of what INN actually did. There clearly had to be a 'sys' file (however called) somewhere in the chain that controlled what actually went to your downstream peers. >This is significant since normally, for speed, implementations like INN >turn feed subscriptions into a hash table keyed on newsgroup name and >listing all the sites that want to retrieve that newsgroup. This is an >effective technique for nearly all traffic if you're maintaining an active >file, but control messages cannot be handled this way, and INN pulls them >out of normal feed processing and performs a special match of the affected >group against the raw feed patterns instead. OK, it is useful to know that, but I can still see variants on that technique that would work equally well. Anyway, for the final question, what about transit-only systems that keep no active file, nor any permenent store of articles? Do they need to take any special note of Control-headers, or do they just propagate them like ordinary articles, as determined by the Newsgroups-headers plus their peers' subscription information? -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97GBKXT005505 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:11:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i97GBKEI005504 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:11:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from b.mail.peak.org (b.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.42]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97GBJPO005493 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:11:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by b.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i97GBHjZ037338 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:11:17 -0700 (PDT) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: relay checking Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Henry Spencer : >Most people believe that SHOULD (or the seldom-used RECOMMENDED) carries a >lot of weight -- that it is not just a suggestion or an encouragement, but >an emphatic recommendation that you disregard at your peril, although >unusual circumstances may occasionally justify violating it. >There are a few people who persist in claiming that it doesn't really mean >that. My concern is to communicate, and therefore I use SHOULD with its >consensus meaning. Unfortunately, every standard that uses SHOULD proclaims somewhere within that they use SHOULD as it is defined in RFC2119. There is no mention of "peril" or "emphatic" in that standard. Not even the implication. Wouldn't it be nice if the "consensus" meaning actually matched the consensus meaning that was achieved when RFC2119 was adopted? I mean, if the authors of RFC2119 MEANT the strength of force that Henry's "consensus" says, they could have said so themselves. Since they did not, it seems clear to me that they didn't intend any such force. Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97G7IoP005248 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:07:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i97G7IVm005247 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:07:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from b.mail.peak.org (b.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.42]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97G7III005234 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:07:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by b.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i97G7FjZ035737 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:07:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:07:15 -0700 (PDT) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Usefor/usepro conflicts. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: "Charles Lindsey" : >Well "poster" is the word we have used in the draft all along, and I worry >that some subtle change of meaning will ensue if we change it now. Any >more opinions on this one? Just as I did for the word "followup" and found nothing really changed, nothing really changes for the word "poster", since most of the standard deals with the actions of posting and what happens from thereon, and not much with the content of the body, which is the author's responsibility. >And, as someone else observed, "poster" is used as a keyword in Followup-To >and in Mail-Copies-To, and in both those places it means the From/Reply-To >guy. Yes, this is the only point I found that would be in error, but since it is current practice, it seems a bit late to change that to "author". It is also pretty much harmless, and can easily be covered by a simple statement that "yes, we know it ought to be 'author', but its usage is historical and we're just going to live with it this way". Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97G15t0004898 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:01:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i97G15N0004897 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:01:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from a.mail.peak.org (a.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.41]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97G14c4004876 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:01:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by a.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i97G10UD060096 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:01:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:01:00 -0700 (PDT) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: "Charles Lindsey" : >The whole of this discussion started because it was reported that some FAQ >writers had formed the habit of linking their multi-part FAQs together >using References-headers, and a consensus developed that this practice was >a Good Thing. Umm, this discussion started when I read the document listed in the subject and saw a silly alternative definition for a word that implied a level of control over something that did not exist. >But why did those FAQ writers start doing that? Because they saw that it >would cause their parts to be presented in the correct order, at least in >those reading agents which did threading (which was enough of them to be >useful). And which reading agents did they see this in? Their own. Keep in mind, they get to control how they see things, so the fact that they can control how they see things is no big surprise. It is their ability to control how OTHER PEOPLE see things that is the question, and which they lack. >And I've just explained why it was right. Your move. No, you explained why someone has unfounded expectations about something they do being able to control other people's display of articles. Unfounded expectations are not a reason to change a definition. However, the fact that they DO use the header to indicate relationships that are just outside the old definition are a reason to change it, if one it truly documenting existing practice. It's just not correct to imply that their desire to indicate a relationship actually has some basis in controlling the display of articles. That implication is the problem with the alternate definition you have provided. Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97Fd6De003455 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:39:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i97Fd66U003454 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:39:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97Fd501003447 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:39:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: wwvnFyfMpUbSJ7cH+G4aB0MsHwYCNl628XXpbM4f1hM= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CFaMG-0003qP-00; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 11:39:08 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id i97Fd4qa020135(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:39:04 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id i97Fd3Nk020133(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:39:03 -0400 Message-ID: <41656316.5060504@erols.com> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 11:39:02 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henry Spencer CC: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: relay checking References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Henry Spencer wrote: > I'm a little reluctant to use SHOULD for any of this, because that keyword > is generally understood to mean that the action in question is nearly > mandatory, No, it's understood to be a recommendation (and in fact the term explicitly and by definition carries the same weight as the adjective RECOMMENDED); MUST and MUST NOT are mandates (for conforming implementations -- and there is no enforcement, so even those terms are not terribly forceful). > I think the right choice is either to say MAY with some accompanying words > urging people to do it, The term MAY is generally used for clarification where an implementor might misinterpret some normative text as precluding something which is in fact not intended to be precluded. Any other use of the term tends to be vacuous since it is generally permitted to do anything that is not explicitly proscribed. > or to say SHOULD but accompany it with an escape > hatch like "to the extent that performance requirements permit". I don't have a problem with that, but let's make sure the right wording is used; let's not speak of performance requirements where performance is not the major issue. We also ought to recognize several different instances where different fields might be checked. Some fields are checked at injection time and are supposed to remain unaltered during transport. It would probably be unreasonable to demand routine checks of such fields at every relay agent, and given the protocol specifications (viz. checked once at injection time and remaining unaltered thereafter) there is only a small point (see below) in recommending checks. There is no reason to prohibit such checks. On the other hand, there are fields (e.g. Path) which are modified during transport, and which are used in the protocol (at least by some implementations, as discussed). It is not unreasonable to recommend that these fields be checked, so as to be able to pinpoint the agent responsible for screwing up syntax or similar errors. The questions then are what might reasonably be checked, when, and by whom. At minimum, if a field is to be checked, the part which should have been modified by the preceding (upstream) agent should be checked. If checking is a mere recommendation, then it is possible that that upstream agent did no checking of what was modified by its upstream neighbor and so on, so it might be prudent to check everything that might have been modified since injection. Such checks (of modifications made by predecessors) should probably be performed on receipt, before other processing, so as to avoid attempting to process broken articles. There is little point in an agent attempting to check its own modifications prior to sending an article downstream, since an author's error in interpretation of requirements when modifying a field is likely to be repeated when checking. It is also conceivable that an injection agent may have made an error, so there is no reason to preclude a relay agent from checking parts of fields that might have been set at injection time, or entire fields that are supposed to be set at injection and remain unmodified thereafter. Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97CCPLK084006 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 05:12:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i97CCPtB084005 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 05:12:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97CCNgL083996 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 05:12:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CFX8D-0000To-00 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:12:25 +0200 Received: from du-001-107.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.107]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:12:25 +0200 Received: from nobody by du-001-107.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:12:25 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:09:49 +0200 Organization: Lines: 15 Message-ID: <4165320D.157F@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <200410041711.i94HBdf06942@panix5.panix.com> <20041004182521.GA28583@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-107.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: > There would be little point in having the References header > if it were not intended to be used for threading. Depends, my UA certainly uses it for threading, but it also displays the "References:" in a way suited for a "See-Also:" literal meaning of references. Especially if I select its "options -> show headers -> brief". Of course both attempts (threading and "See-Also:") can fail, and the main purpose of references from my POV is threading. Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97Bucj4082824 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 04:56:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i97BucN3082823 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 04:56:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97BuYp7082809 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 04:56:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CFWsn-0008MZ-00 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:56:29 +0200 Received: from du-001-107.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.107]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:56:29 +0200 Received: from nobody by du-001-107.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:56:29 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Usefor/usepro conflicts. Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:55:16 +0200 Organization: Lines: 28 Message-ID: <41652EA4.40E6@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <87zn38syzu.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-107.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey wrote: >>> "poster" is the person or software that composes a possibly >>> compliant article for submission to a posting agent. The >>> poster is synonymous with [RFC 2822]'s author. >> I believe this is wrong. Poster is synonymous with sender. > Well "poster" is the word we have used in the draft all > along, and I worry that some subtle change of meaning will > ensue if we change it now. Any more opinions on this one? > And, as someone else observed, "poster" is used as a keyword > in Followup-To and in Mail-Copies-To, and in both those > places it means the From/Reply-To guy. "Poster" is as you say the From/Reply-To guy. That's the same as the 2822-Sender. It's generally the same as the 2822-From (author), but not always. Likewise the poster is generally the author, but not always (sometimes FAQs are written by A, but posted by B, where A is the author, and B is a posting-Bot run by somebody else). I'm not sure about this, but a news From is not always exactly the same as a 2822-From, a news From is more like a MAIL FROM. Bye, Frank Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i973CV4l029506 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i973CVgR029505 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.197]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i973CUXJ029474 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-71.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.71 with poptime) by smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 03:12:31 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CPd26135; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:25 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20216 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <200410041711.i94HBdf06942@panix5.panix.com> <20041004182521.GA28583@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:02:47 GMT Lines: 47 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <20041004182521.GA28583@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> Eivind Tagseth writes: >You are indicating that your article and the article with the last >message id in the References header has a child-parent relationship. >Furthermore, you're saying that all message ids in the References header >have an ancestry relationship to your article. And you're saying that >the very first message id in the References header is the very first >message of this ancestry lineage. >I guess this isn't quite correct, as the References header may also contain >message ids that are not decendants of the very first article (when >replying to two different articles as once), or doesn't this ever >happen? We have explicitly said we do not cover the case of followups to multiple articles, and RFC 2822 says much the same thing for email. OTOH, if you do make such a followup and manually create a References-header in a plausible way, then most current threading agents will probably manage to do something sensible with it. >Isn't this what the references header really means? How to display >the article in a news reader isn't really that relevant, the natural >way to display articles having such relations comes from the meaning >of the header, not vice versa. I think the two things go hand in hand. There would be little point in having the References header if it were not intended to be used for threading. >Are we really not able to describe the semantics of the references >header without doing it backwards by describing the ui rather >than the meaning. But I agree that some semantics in the USEFOR document would be a good addition to the detailed instructions in USEPRO as to how to contruct it, and I intend to look into this. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i973CS1i029498 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i973CSNH029497 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.197]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i973CRQN029464 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-71.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.71 with poptime) by smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 03:12:28 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CR726157; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:27 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20218 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Usefor/usepro conflicts. Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <87zn38syzu.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:23:15 GMT Lines: 47 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87zn38syzu.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Charles Lindsey writes: >> OK, I now have: >> A "poster" is the person or software that composes a possibly >> compliant article for submission to a posting agent. The poster is >> synonymous with [RFC 2822]'s author. >I believe this is wrong. Poster is synonymous with sender. Well "poster" is the word we have used in the draft all along, and I worry that some subtle change of meaning will ensue if we change it now. Any more opinions on this one? And, as someone else observed, "poster" is used as a keyword in Followup-To and in Mail-Copies-To, and in both those places it means the From/Reply-To guy. >>> The word in standard usage implies "the person who posts", which is >>> different than "the person who writes", so as a synonym, it belongs to >>> "sender". >> But the term as widely used throughout Usenet is as I have defined it. >I strongly disagree. Everywhere that I've seen poster used on Usenet in a >context that drew the distinction between author and transmitter, poster >referred to the person who injected the article, not the author. Yes, and in any case in the draft where that distinction is important we need to be careful, as in the following case: >> Posting agents meant for use by ordinary posters SHOULD reject any >> attempt to post an article which cancels or Supersedes another >> article of which the poster is not the author or sender. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i973CRfS029489 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i973CRSB029488 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.197]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i973CQck029463 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-71.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.71 with poptime) by smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 03:12:27 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CT326167; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:29 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20220 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: relay checking Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:28:06 GMT Lines: 40 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In Henry Spencer writes: >On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Russ Allbery wrote: >> I thought Henry and I just agreed on language, and I'm curious as to why >> you decided to go with this language instead... >> I don't see a lot of purpose served in distinguishing between existence >> and syntactic validity of headers. I think that makes the logic of the >> standard slightly more complex for no particularly clear reason. >To clarify my own position on this... >+ I see a small benefit from insisting on presence of mandatory headers, >but only a small one. It's unobjectionable but not very important. I have written SHOULD. >+ I'm reluctant to demand full checking by relay agents which otherwise >don't have reason to do it. Even SHOULD seems too strong a word here. I have written MAY. >+ I would *like* to see relay agents not only permitted, but explicitly >encouraged, to do as much checking as they feel they can. Not sure I want to encourage too hard. It could be a severe performance penalty. And I agree that SHOULD is far too strong. >+ I don't care deeply about the issue, and could live with any wording >that permits full checking but doesn't require it. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i973CQgQ029481 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i973CQwK029480 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.197]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i973COGl029462 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-71.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.71 with poptime) by smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 03:12:26 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CQR26148; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:26 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20217 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: relay checking Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:14:37 GMT Lines: 31 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In Henry Spencer writes: >On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Charles Lindsey wrote: >> 3. It SHOULD reject any article that does not have the correct >> mandatory headers (section a-5) present. >Why "correct"? That seems redundant, and it is bound to make people >wonder whether it has some special significance. I'd take that word out. Because that word has been there all along. But I take your point. 3. It SHOULD reject any article that does not include all the mandatory headers (section a-5). And likewise for serving agents. There was also a similar use of "correct" in relation to injecting agents and proto-articles, where I have changed it to "proper". >Otherwise, this seems okay. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i973COGG029472 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i973CO3F029471 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.197]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i973CN3V029461 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:12:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-71.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.71 with poptime) by smtp807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 03:12:24 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CSO26162; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:28 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20219 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:25:54 GMT Lines: 29 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >Hi, >I would like to poll the WG about fate of the Complaints-To header. >I would ask people to voice their opinion about the following question: >should Complaints-To be standardized as described in section 6.20 of >draft-ietf-usefor-article-13.txt? >If the answer to this question is "yes", than it will be added to >draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-01.txt. Otherwise I will reopen the discussion >whether it should be an email address or an URL. Yes. But note that Complaints-To comes as a pair with Injection-Info. Also, I would have no problem with a URL as an alternative, but _only_ if that URL were limited to 'mailto'. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972SDBK026720 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:28:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i972SDOP026719 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:28:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.Stanford.EDU (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.125]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972SDJQ026710 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:28:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i972SGbP032252 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:28:17 -0700 Received: (qmail 14303 invoked by uid 1000); 7 Oct 2004 02:28:16 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-01 In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:20:41 GMT") References: <87ekkomuxa.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87fz53mq54.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87u0tidz4a.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:28:16 -0700 Message-ID: <871xgb9s8v.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey writes: > Russ Allbery writes: >> However, relay agents that check the Newsgroups header against a list >> of valid groups *do* need to propagate control messages as if the group >> they were affecting existed. *That* behavior does need to be specified >> in the standard. This is independent of the question of whether one >> should ignore the Newsgroups header on newgroup and rmgroup control >> messages entirely. > But if control messages are to be propagated regardless of what the > Newsgroups-header says, then how is it that I do not see newgroup > messages for jp.* and other hierarchies to which I do not subscribe? I am completely baffled by this reply. You seem to have not read what I have said. You don't get newgroup messages for jp.* because you are not being fed the jp.* hierarchy, and the only mention of "control messages are to be propagated regardless of what the Newsgroups-header says" is the text that's currently in USEPRO that I'm trying to get you to take *out*. Control messages MUST be propagated as if the newsgroup that they affect existed, even if it doesn't. It is occasionally additionally a good idea to behave as if the Newsgroups header contains only the newsgroup being affected, rather than whatever other random junk the poster has chosen to put in there, but that's a different topic. The important part is that if I post a newgroup message for news.misc, that newgroup message should propagate to any of my peers that would receive news.misc given their subscription patterns, even if that group doesn't actually exist. This is significant since normally, for speed, implementations like INN turn feed subscriptions into a hash table keyed on newsgroup name and listing all the sites that want to retrieve that newsgroup. This is an effective technique for nearly all traffic if you're maintaining an active file, but control messages cannot be handled this way, and INN pulls them out of normal feed processing and performs a special match of the affected group against the raw feed patterns instead. > So, back when Tale first created 'humanities.misc', I think you will > find that his Newsgroups-header will have contained at least token > groups from sci, comp, news, talk, etc. Otherwise, it would never have > propagated very far. How much money would you like to bet me? -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972CbCh025879 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i972CbK6025878 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.201]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i972CaPl025861 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-68-121.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.68.121 with poptime) by smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 02:12:21 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CGm26067; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:16 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20212 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Issues with MIME-style parameters Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <412DEE02.1040604@erols.com> <415ABDFE.9080303@erols.com> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:10:46 GMT Lines: 32 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <415ABDFE.9080303@erols.com> Bruce Lilly writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >[...] >> So the >> possibility that there may one day be parameters in the Path header has >> changed nothing. >[...] >> why should it be used as an argument with >> Injection-Date? >The WG Chair declared the matter of so-called "MIME" parameters >a closed issue on August 23, a full week before Charles' message >was composed, and more than a month before it was posted to the >mailing list. This is outrageous. Mr. Chairman, can we please >settle this issue once and for all. The remark concerning the Path header was totally peripheral to the substance of what my message was about. I note that you have made no response to that substance. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972CR5C025828 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i972CRDS025827 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-5.gradwell.net (lon-mail-5.gradwell.net [193.111.201.131]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972CQIJ025809 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) X-Gradwell-Debug: delivering mail for [ietf-usefor@imc.org] to mail.imc.org [208.184.76.43]:25 Received: from host81-144-68-121.midband.mdip.bt.net [81.144.68.121] by lon-mail-5.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.138) id 4164a60f.e777.19; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:31 +0100 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CI826077; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:18 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20213 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-01 Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <87ekkomuxa.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87fz53mq54.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87u0tidz4a.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:20:41 GMT Lines: 119 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Charles Lindsey writes: >> We did discuss the text that says control messages need to have a >> Newsgroups-header that will steer them to the proper places, and the >> text you see contains some tweaks arising from that. >Control messages should not, in general, be crossposted to other >newsgroups than they one that they affect. David Lawrence was the one who >first taught me the problems caused by doing so. For example, when people >form a habit of crossposting control messages to alt.config, someone >limiting what hierarchies in alt.* they receive, they still ends up >getting control messages for the hierarchies they don't want. Indeed so, which is why our draft says you SHOULD include the affected group in the Newsgroups-header, and you MAY include others, but it then points out that this may cause other problems. However, it may sometimes be useful, and others have said as much in response to your message. >However, relay agents that check the Newsgroups header against a list of >valid groups *do* need to propagate control messages as if the group they >were affecting existed. *That* behavior does need to be specified in the >standard. This is independent of the question of whether one should >ignore the Newsgroups header on newgroup and rmgroup control messages >entirely. But if control messages are to be propagated regardless of what the Newsgroups-header says, then how is it that I do not see newgroup messages for jp.* and other hierarchies to which I do not subscribe? For sure someone upstream of me is filtering them out, so I can only suppose that some 'sys' files are being consulted somewhere in the process, but where? > I'm surprised that it's not in son-of-1036 and doesn't appear >to be in CNews, but perhaps both predate the understanding that this was >the right thing to do. This has been implemented in INN since the 1.0 >release in 1991. >If relay agents don't implement this behavior, booster rmgroups are >futile because they won't propagate past the first host that already >removed the group and newgroups won't propagate through relay agents that >don't act on them immediately and require that newsgroups exist before >propagating messages. This is clearly wrong. Sure, but different relay agents attack this problem in all sorts of different ways. For example, in CNews, it checks for the presence of a Control-header at an early stage, and immediately decides to file it in the 'control' newsgroup (which is always in the active file). So any control message received (i.e. which the upstream peer was somehow configured to send to it) will get stored regardless. Then, whenever a new article is stored it consults its 'sys' file to see which of its downstream peers it should send it to, and that of course is determined by what is in the article's Newsgroups-header. Note that 'sys' files are usually broadly written, disposing of complete (sub-)hierarchies using wildmat notation or similar. So, back when Tale first created 'humanities.misc', I think you will find that his Newsgroups-header will have contained at least token groups from sci, comp, news, talk, etc. Otherwise, it would never have propagated very far. >Well, I don't believe that's correct, but there's no point in arguing >about past history. I'm making that statement now. This should be part >of the standard. I think it is clear that we have to put _something_ in the standard about this, but I think we need to understand the range of practices that current relaying agents actually DO before writing any text. >> Even if relaying agents do not, as a matter of local policy, intend >> to honour certain control messages, they MUST still propagate them in >> the normal manner. >> [The inclusion of that paragraph still remains under discussion.] >This is still not correct. This doesn't help with the issue addressed >above in propagation of newgroup and rmgroup control messages and simply >contradicts other portions of the document in a fashion that leaves one >wondering what it's supposed to mean. Sure, but it's not supposed to be anything to do with the issues discussed above. It is concerned with agents that try to say "I am not going to create this group, so I am not going to tell you about it". > Please, remove this language and >just explain that newgroup and rmgroup control messages should always be >propagated as if the group they're affecting exists, even if it does not. I could easily be persuaded that the wording should come out, but at least let us remove it for the right reasons (e.g. that no current agent is so inconsiderate and mean as to do such a thing). >> Ah! I had always understood, since the matter was first raised on the >> news.admin.net-abuse groups, that it came out of the normal processing >> of the Path header rather than on special code in transport agents. >Nope. It was possible because of a pre-existing feature in INN (the path >aliasing concept predates pseudo-sites by quite some time), but path >aliasing is not really part of the normal processing of the Path header. OK. Thanks for that, though it implies that the trick would never have worked on CNews. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972CQfi025818 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i972CQlG025815 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-5.gradwell.net (lon-mail-5.gradwell.net [193.111.201.131]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972CNh3025800 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) X-Gradwell-Debug: delivering mail for [ietf-usefor@imc.org] to mail.imc.org [208.184.76.43]:25 Received: from host81-144-68-121.midband.mdip.bt.net [81.144.68.121] by lon-mail-5.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.138) id 4164a60d.e777.17; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:29 +0100 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CLc26098; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:21 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20214 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <200409301656.i8UGqSOL005552@jefferson.patriot.net> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:23:37 GMT Lines: 27 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <200409301656.i8UGqSOL005552@jefferson.patriot.net> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" writes: >In , on 09/29/2004 > at 06:07 PM, "Charles Lindsey" said: >>OK, that is new wording, and it may yet disappear entirely. But the >>"MUST be identical" is indeed too severe. I have made a note to >>review it. >You could just add an additional phrse along the lines of "except as >requested by the reader." >For the most part I like your text as it is. Which seems to imply that you support retention of a "Duties of a Reading Agent" section broadly as I have suggested it. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972CQLl025817 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i972CQ3F025816 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-5.gradwell.net (lon-mail-5.gradwell.net [193.111.201.131]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i972CPOP025801 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:12:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) X-Gradwell-Debug: delivering mail for [ietf-usefor@imc.org] to mail.imc.org [208.184.76.43]:25 Received: from host81-144-68-121.midband.mdip.bt.net [81.144.68.121] by lon-mail-5.gradwell.net with esmtp (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.138) id 4164a60e.e777.18; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:30 +0100 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id i972CNZ26118; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:12:23 +0100 (BST) To: LIST: usenet-format@landfield.com, ietf-usefor@imc.org; Xref: clerew local.usefor:20215 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:45:51 GMT Lines: 57 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In John Stanley writes: >"Charles Lindsey" : >>The alternative text, which you did not quote, is >Didn't need to quote it, I thought. >>No, the poster cannot "define" how articles are to be displayed, but he >>can indicate his intention in the matter ... >If he cannot control it, his intention of controlling it is irrelevant. "I >want ...". That's nice, but you don't get to say. Presenting it as if >there was some mechanism, when none exists, just leads to foolish >expectations. Just like the foolish expectations that copyright notices in >the body of an article are going to change how Google or any other >automated news processor is going to work. The whole of this discussion started because it was reported that some FAQ writers had formed the habit of linking their multi-part FAQs together using References-headers, and a consensus developed that this practice was a Good Thing. But why did those FAQ writers start doing that? Because they saw that it would cause their parts to be presented in the correct order, at least in those reading agents which did threading (which was enough of them to be useful). In other words, they were indicating an intention of how they would like their articles displayed. Not guaranteed to work, but working often enough to be useful. >>>The alternative I suggested is still better. Why has it never appeared in >>>any form? >>You need to explain _why_ your wording is better. >I have, many times. On the other hand, I've not seen any explanation of >why your new alternative is better, it just appeared out of nowhere. And >now I've explained why YOUR wording is wrong. And I've just explained why it was right. Your move. All the remaining points raised in your message raise nothing that has not already been discussed on this list ad nauseam and received adequate answers, both from myself and from others. If other members of this list feel that any of your points are worth further discussion, then I am willing to reopen them. But not otherwise. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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 above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i95J8Neq043767 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:08:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i95J8NkV043766 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:08:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i95J8MB7043759 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:08:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i95J8DcC021726; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:08:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i95J8DSA021725; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:08:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:08:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: relay checking In-Reply-To: <4162A120.20806@erols.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Bruce Lilly wrote: > > + I'm reluctant to demand full checking by relay agents which otherwise > > don't have reason to do it. Even SHOULD seems too strong a word here. > > + I would *like* to see relay agents not only permitted, but explicitly > > encouraged, to do as much checking as they feel they can. > > Since SHOULD carries the same weight as RECOMMENDED... Most people believe that SHOULD (or the seldom-used RECOMMENDED) carries a lot of weight -- that it is not just a suggestion or an encouragement, but an emphatic recommendation that you disregard at your peril, although unusual circumstances may occasionally justify violating it. There are a few people who persist in claiming that it doesn't really mean that. My concern is to communicate, and therefore I use SHOULD with its consensus meaning. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i95DRGiN013675 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:27:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i95DRGhX013674 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:27:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i95DRGlR013667 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:27:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: 6J5jcvtjudc938dpQvexrg5ef6XVIppk7MEUdmNlIiI= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CEpLZ-00058k-00; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:27:17 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id i95DRGr0008393(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:27:16 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id i95DRFlX008392(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:27:16 -0400 Message-ID: <41628E2D.2060107@erols.com> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:06:05 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor Organization: Bruce Lilly User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Melnikov CC: ietf-usefor Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Alexey Melnikov wrote: > should Complaints-To be standardized as described in section 6.20 of > draft-ietf-usefor-article-13.txt? No. Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i95DR378013660 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:27:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i95DR39o013659 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:27:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i95DR2U5013652 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:27:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from blilly@erols.com) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: 6J5jcvtjudcz0OH4NnYi0NLdZiOf+WfQjl22YFGiQ0g= Received: from 65.105.220.34.ptr.us.xo.net ([65.105.220.34] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CEpLI-0002YL-00; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:27:00 -0400 Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id i95DQvQw008389(8.12.10/8.12.10/mail.blilly.com sendmail.mc.mail 1.18 2004/05/15 07:23:45) ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:26:57 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id i95DQuuF008388(8.12.10/8.12.10/blilly.com submit.mc 1.1 2003/08/26 22:21:33) ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:26:56 -0400 Message-ID: <4162A120.20806@erols.com> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:26:56 -0400 From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Organization: Bruce Lilly User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henry Spencer CC: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: relay checking References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Henry Spencer wrote: > To clarify my own position on this... > [...] > + I'm reluctant to demand full checking by relay agents which otherwise > don't have reason to do it. Even SHOULD seems too strong a word here. > > + I would *like* to see relay agents not only permitted, but explicitly > encouraged, to do as much checking as they feel they can. Since SHOULD carries the same weight as RECOMMENDED, either there is an inconsistency in your position or you believe that there is some significant difference between "RECOMMENDED" and encouraged. So please do clarify; how would an explicit recommendation not encourage relay agent authors to "do as much checking as they feel they can"? Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94M82Zr022850 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:08:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94M82f4022849 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:08:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from a.mail.peak.org (a.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.41]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94M823R022841 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:08:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by a.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i94M810l095812 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:08:01 -0700 (PDT) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Seth Breidbart : >What part of "me, as a reader" didn't you understand? The last word? Already covered. And still, your deference to the poster is well and good, but guessing nonetheless, and not in any way universal. >When I post, I _intend_ that others read my post. Obviously, I can't >enforce that; Glad to see left field is still alive. The issue at hand is not whether they read your article or not, it is how your article is displayed when they read it. Do you have control over that? No. Is your "intent" worth much, given you have no control and no mechanism defined for describing your intent? No. >When I post a followup in response to a specific article, with a >References header, am I indicating that my article is part of a >thread, or am I indicating my intention that my article be treated as >part of that thread? Irrelevant question, since the issue is not "is this part of a thread", but "do you have control over how it is displayed?" >> Oh, I see where you get your SWAG number. YOUR newsreader shows you things >> the way YOU want them 99% of the time, thus everyone elses shows them >> things the way you want them 99% of the time. >No, their newsreader shows them things the way they want. Yes, exactly. So your control over how they see things is nada, and your intentions about same are meaningless. >Really? If I put a References header into a new article, your >newsreader (as you have it configured) won't show my article as part >of the thread containing the messages referred to in that References >header? It shows things the way I specify. If I say not to, you have no control. You certainly can't say "show this next to that". >> The fact remains: poster "intentions" on how messages are displayed, >> or in what order, are irrelevant simply because the expectation of >> control is specious. >Let's remove the Newsgroups header, too, then, for the same reason. Left field is active. I don't know what "same reason" you think applies, but the control of the newsgroups to which an article is posted IS the posters; how the article is displayed is up to the reader. The same kinds of arguments do not apply to the Newsgroups header. Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94LqeHG022025 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:52:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94Lqe9H022024 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:52:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94Lqd30022018 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:52:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [213.116.60.52] (1Cust52.tnt106.lnd4.gbr.da.uu.net [213.116.60.52]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 22:52:28 +0100 Message-ID: <4161C5F0.7000703@isode.com> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:51:44 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor Subject: USEFOR WG meeting in Washington, DC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Is there any interest to have an official WG slot at Washington, DC IETF? Please, let me know. Alexey Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94LkWbP021661 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:46:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94LkWOi021660 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:46:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from b.mail.peak.org (b.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.42]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94LkVPc021639 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:46:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by b.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i94LkTZh087133 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:46:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:46:29 -0700 (PDT) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Seth Breidbart : >While I don't _have to_ display anything the >way the poster wants, I will often _choose_ to _defer to_ the poster's >wishes. Sorry, the first time I read that I saw it as choosing to defer to the reader's wishes. The fact is, the only "poster's wish" that you can know is that he thinks some article is related to another. Whether that means he wants it displayed next to or above is difficult to tell, since there is no definition to guide anyone. You can defer to what you think the poster wants for display, but you are just guessing, and in any case, the poster doesn't have the control that this draft is trying to imply he has. Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94LZhaj020971 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94LZhFw020970 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94LZgtb020962 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i94LZecC015255; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:35:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i94LZeks015254; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:35:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:35:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > I would like to poll the WG about fate of the Complaints-To header. > I would ask people to voice their opinion about the following question: > should Complaints-To be standardized as described in section 6.20 of > draft-ietf-usefor-article-13.txt? 6.20 of article-13 looks good to me, let's do it that way. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94LUciJ020660 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:30:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94LUc21020659 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:30:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.Stanford.EDU (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.125]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94LUbT7020651 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:30:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i94LUddn010912 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:30:40 -0700 Received: (qmail 5251 invoked by uid 1000); 4 Oct 2004 21:30:39 -0000 To: ietf-usefor Subject: Re: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? In-Reply-To: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> (Alexey Melnikov's message of "Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:03:36 +0100") References: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:30:39 -0700 Message-ID: <877jq6rx1c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Alexey Melnikov writes: > I would like to poll the WG about fate of the Complaints-To header. I > would ask people to voice their opinion about the following question: > should Complaints-To be standardized as described in section 6.20 of > draft-ietf-usefor-article-13.txt? > If the answer to this question is "yes", than it will be added to > draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-01.txt. Otherwise I will reopen the discussion > whether it should be an email address or an URL. I don't believe it should be standardized as described there. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94KEkRn010341 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:14:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94KEkt6010340 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:14:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94KEjpX010328 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:14:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [213.116.56.3] (1Cust3.tnt104.lnd4.gbr.da.uu.net [213.116.56.3]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 21:14:47 +0100 Message-ID: <4161AC98.1010000@isode.com> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:03:36 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor Subject: Standardize Complaints-To as deployed? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Hi, I would like to poll the WG about fate of the Complaints-To header. I would ask people to voice their opinion about the following question: should Complaints-To be standardized as described in section 6.20 of draft-ietf-usefor-article-13.txt? If the answer to this question is "yes", than it will be added to draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-01.txt. Otherwise I will reopen the discussion whether it should be an email address or an URL. Thanks, Alexey Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94IPmLv082795 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:25:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94IPm0W082794 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:25:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kosat.consultit.no (sam.consultit.no [80.203.206.226]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94IPk1N082774 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:25:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivindt@multinet.no) Received: from tagseth-trd.consultit.no (182.80-202-209.nextgentel.com [80.202.209.182]) by kosat.consultit.no (Postfix) with SMTP id DCEDC7D3C for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:25:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by tagseth-trd.consultit.no (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:25:22 +0200 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:25:22 +0200 From: Eivind Tagseth To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Message-ID: <20041004182521.GA28583@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> Mail-Followup-To: Eivind Tagseth , ietf-usefor@imc.org References: <200410041711.i94HBdf06942@panix5.panix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200410041711.i94HBdf06942@panix5.panix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: * Seth Breidbart [2004-10-04 13:11:39 -0400]: > John Stanley wrote: > > What you intend is nice, and it is nice that you think it is > > important to you, but your intention really is irrelevant, since > > there is no means for you to accomplish what you want. > When I post a followup in response to a specific article, with a > References header, am I indicating that my article is part of a > thread, or am I indicating my intention that my article be treated as > part of that thread? You are indicating that your article and the article with the last message id in the References header has a child-parent relationship. Furthermore, you're saying that all message ids in the References header have an ancestry relationship to your article. And you're saying that the very first message id in the References header is the very first message of this ancestry lineage. I guess this isn't quite correct, as the References header may also contain message ids that are not decendants of the very first article (when replying to two different articles as once), or doesn't this ever happen? Isn't this what the references header really means? How to display the article in a news reader isn't really that relevant, the natural way to display articles having such relations comes from the meaning of the header, not vice versa. Are we really not able to describe the semantics of the references header without doing it backwards by describing the ui rather than the meaning. Eivind Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94HBcAm065242 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:11:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94HBcCm065241 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:11:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.1.74]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94HBage065231 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:11:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sethb@panix.com) Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB1D98203 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:11:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i94HBdf06942; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:11:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:11:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200410041711.i94HBdf06942@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: ietf-usefor@imc.org In-reply-to: (message from John Stanley on Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:30:57 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: References: Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: John Stanley wrote: > Seth Breidbart : >>> If he cannot control it, his intention of controlling it is >>> irrelevant. > >>Not to me, as a reader. > > If you think you have some control, then you are ill informed. What part of "me, as a reader" didn't you understand? The last word? > What you intend is nice, and it is nice that you think it is > important to you, but your intention really is irrelevant, since > there is no means for you to accomplish what you want. When I post, I _intend_ that others read my post. Obviously, I can't enforce that; does that mean that transmission of posts should be blocked entirely? When I post a followup in response to a specific article, with a References header, am I indicating that my article is part of a thread, or am I indicating my intention that my article be treated as part of that thread? >>While I don't _have to_ display anything the way the poster wants, I >>will often _choose_ to _defer to_ the poster's wishes. > > It's nice that you "choose" to defer, since you actually have no choice > in the matter. As the _reader_, I have _all_ the choice. >>The "display intentions" are not irrelevant to me, as a reader, > > That's nice. Too bad you don't have a choice. But I do. >>because my newsreader adheres to them 99.9+% of the time (that is, I >>seldom bother to override its defaults). > > Oh, I see where you get your SWAG number. YOUR newsreader shows you things > the way YOU want them 99% of the time, thus everyone elses shows them > things the way you want them 99% of the time. No, their newsreader shows them things the way they want. > Sorry, no. I bet mine doesn't show them your way even 1% of the > time. Your average is down to 50%, and that's just after considering > two readers. Really? If I put a References header into a new article, your newsreader (as you have it configured) won't show my article as part of the thread containing the messages referred to in that References header? And you think a significant fraction of other readers have their newsreaders configured similarly? > The fact remains: poster "intentions" on how messages are displayed, > or in what order, are irrelevant simply because the expectation of > control is specious. Let's remove the Newsgroups header, too, then, for the same reason. Seth Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94FV2mt044304 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:31:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94FV2sp044303 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:31:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from a.mail.peak.org (a.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.41]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94FV2xr044289 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:31:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by a.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i94FUv0l030289 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:30:57 -0700 (PDT) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Seth Breidbart : >> If he cannot control it, his intention of controlling it is >> irrelevant. >Not to me, as a reader. If you think you have some control, then you are ill informed. What you intend is nice, and it is nice that you think it is important to you, but your intention really is irrelevant, since there is no means for you to accomplish what you want. >While I don't _have to_ display anything the >way the poster wants, I will often _choose_ to _defer to_ the poster's >wishes. It's nice that you "choose" to defer, since you actually have no choice in the matter. If the user wants to display your message in 1 pt font in red blinking letters, there isn't anything you can do to stop it. >An expectation that is fulfilled, say, 98% of the time is far from >"foolish". An expectation based on SWAG numbers, with no mechanism to accomplish it in the first place, is foolish. >The "display intentions" are not irrelevant to me, as a reader, That's nice. Too bad you don't have a choice. >because my newsreader adheres to them 99.9+% of the time (that is, I >seldom bother to override its defaults). Oh, I see where you get your SWAG number. YOUR newsreader shows you things the way YOU want them 99% of the time, thus everyone elses shows them things the way you want them 99% of the time. Sorry, no. I bet mine doesn't show them your way even 1% of the time. Your average is down to 50%, and that's just after considering two readers. The fact remains: poster "intentions" on how messages are displayed, or in what order, are irrelevant simply because the expectation of control is specious. Better to teach people the truth than give them false expectations, which will lead them to come here expecting their intentions to be codified in the standard, as we are now seeing happen. Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94EERWw038787 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 07:14:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i94EER5F038786 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 07:14:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i94EEQlh038780 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 07:14:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.0.116] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:14:26 +0100 Message-ID: <41615AC2.7030205@isode.com> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:14:26 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor Subject: Re: Issues with MIME-style parameters References: <412DEE02.1040604@erols.com> <415ABDFE.9080303@erols.com> In-Reply-To: <415ABDFE.9080303@erols.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020007080808030900050305" Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: --------------020007080808030900050305 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Bruce Lilly wrote: >Charles Lindsey wrote: > >[...] > >>So the >>possibility that there may one day be parameters in the Path header has >>changed nothing. >> >[...] > > >>why should it be used as an argument with >>Injection-Date? >> >> > >The WG Chair declared the matter of so-called "MIME" parameters >a closed issue on August 23, a full week before Charles' message >was composed, and more than a month before it was posted to the >mailing list. This is outrageous. Mr. Chairman, can we please >settle this issue once and for all. > Just to clarify, based on WG feedback, I've declared that there is no WG support for generic MIME-type parameters applicable to all *existing* and new headers. A new header can be designed to be extensible (including something that looks like MIME-style parameter), however the WG need to understand all "for" and "against" introducing extensibility for the header. Alexey --------------020007080808030900050305 Content-type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote:
Charles Lindsey wrote:

[...]  
So the
possibility that there may one day be parameters in the Path header has
changed nothing. 
[...]
  
why should it be used as an argument with
Injection-Date?
    

The WG Chair declared the matter of so-called "MIME" parameters
a closed issue on August 23, a full week before Charles' message
was composed, and more than a month before it was posted to the
mailing list.  This is outrageous.  Mr. Chairman, can we please
settle this issue once and for all.
Just to clarify, based on WG feedback, I've declared that there is no WG support for generic MIME-type parameters applicable to all *existing* and new headers.

A new header can be designed to be extensible (including something that looks like MIME-style parameter), however the WG need to understand all "for" and "against" introducing extensibility for the header.

Alexey

--------------020007080808030900050305-- Received: from taxis.dwdata.com (taxis.dwdata.com [216.33.93.235]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i93KIMb3051659 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:18:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from petergordon@zoomshare.com) Received: (qmail 96329 invoked by uid 832822484); 3 Oct 2004 19:23:13 -0000 Message-ID: <20041003192313.96328.qmail@taxis.dwdata.com> From: "petergordon" Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:23:13 -0500 (CDT) To: Subject: BUSINESS PROPOSAL!! References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: oMail 0.98.4 - http://webmail.omnis.ch X-IPAddress: 82.169.144.10 X-Sender: petergordon@zoomshare.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mr.Peter Gordons Imperial Bank. 140 Boeing Road East Elma Park Edenvale Gauteng 1610 Republic Of South Africa. Fax:+27:732:632:745 email:petergordons@netscape.net Dear Sir/Madam, I am Mr.Peter Gordon, Head: Enterprise Wide Risk and member of the executive and risk committees. of Imperial Bank, South Africa. This is an urgent and very confidential business proposition. On June 6, 2000,a Foreign Oil consultant/contractor with the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Mr.Stephen Garrick made a numbered time(Fixed) Deposit for twelve calendar months, valued at US$26,500,000.00,(Twenty-six Million, five hundred thousand Dollars). Upon maturity, I sent a routine notification to his forwarding address but got no reply. After a month, we sent a reminder and finally we discovered from his contract employers, the National Petroleum Corporation that Mr.Stephen Garrick died from an automobile accident. On further investigation, I found out that he died without making a "WILL", and all attempts to trace his next of kin was fruitless. I therefore made further investigation and discovered that Mr. Stephen Garrick did not declare any kin or relations in all his official documents, including his Bank Deposit paperwork in my Bank. This sum of US$26,500,000.00 has carefully been fixed in my bank for safekeeping. No one will ever come forward to claim it. According to South African Law, at the expiration of 5 (five) years, the money will revert to the ownership of the Government if nobody applies to claim the fund. Consequently, my proposal is that I will like you as a Foreigner to stand in as the owner of the money which was fixed deposited in my bank. I am writing you because I as a public servant, I cannot operate a foreign account. I want to present you as the owner of the funds so you can be able to claim them with the help of my attorney. This is simple. I will like you to provide immediately your full names,telephone/fax numbers and address, so that the Attorney will prepare the necessary documents which will put you in place as the beneficiary of the funds. The money will be moved out for us to share in the ratio of 80% for me and 20% for you. The paperwork for this transaction will be done by the Attorney If you are interested, please reply immediately via my email address and Upon your response, I shall then provide you with more details that will help you understand the transaction. Please observe utmost confidentiality, and be rest assured that this transaction would be most profitable for both of us because I shall require your assistance to invest my share in real estate within your country. Due to the nature of confidentiality in this Transaction our communication can only be via email and fax mostly. Awaiting your urgent reply via email. Thanks and my regards. Mr.Peter Gordon. PLEASE REPLY TO my FAX NUMBER OR EMAIL:petergordons@netscape.net Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i93Jv5Me050324 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:57:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i93Jv5NN050323 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:57:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.1.74]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i93Jv4xZ050312 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:57:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sethb@panix.com) Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14419981EE for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 15:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i93Jv4o25662; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 15:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 15:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200410031957.i93Jv4o25662@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: ietf-usefor@imc.org In-reply-to: (message from John Stanley on Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:08:32 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: References: Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: John Stanley wrote: > "Charles Lindsey" : >>No, the poster cannot "define" how articles are to be displayed, but he >>can indicate his intention in the matter ... > > If he cannot control it, his intention of controlling it is > irrelevant. Not to me, as a reader. While I don't _have to_ display anything the way the poster wants, I will often _choose_ to _defer to_ the poster's wishes. > "I want ...". That's nice, but you don't get to say. Presenting it > as if there was some mechanism, when none exists, just leads to > foolish expectations. An expectation that is fulfilled, say, 98% of the time is far from "foolish". >>If you read the definition, some followups come from precursors and some >>come from the poster's display intentions. > > Since the "display intentions" are irrelevant, that part of the > definition is irrelevant. The "display intentions" are not irrelevant to me, as a reader, because my newsreader adheres to them 99.9+% of the time (that is, I seldom bother to override its defaults). Seth Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i92JQ4F0050330 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:26:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i92JQ4uV050329 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:26:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.Stanford.EDU (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.125]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i92JQ3D5050323 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:26:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i92JQ73o014843 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:26:07 -0700 Received: (qmail 9107 invoked by uid 1000); 2 Oct 2004 19:26:07 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-01 In-Reply-To: <9I4pzYkXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> (Kai Henningsen's message of "02 Oct 2004 12:05:00 +0200") References: <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <9I4pzYkXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 12:26:07 -0700 Message-ID: <87acv4rkfk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Kai Henningsen writes: > rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote: >> Control messages should not, in general, be crossposted to other >> newsgroups than they one that they affect. > That never seemed right to me. Surely group-list changing ones should be > crossposted to a designated control message group for the hierarchy in > question. Why? What purpose does this serve? >> David Lawrence was the one who first taught me the problems caused by >> doing so. For example, when people form a habit of crossposting >> control messages to alt.config, someone limiting what hierarchies in >> alt.* they receive, they still ends up getting control messages for the >> hierarchies they don't want. > Frankly, I have trouble coming up with a reason why that's bad. From > where I sit, that's an intended result. Why? If I have all of my peers sending me alt.*,@alt.binaries.*, I don't want to get control messages for alt.binaries.* either. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i92FQjdm034867 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:26:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i92FQjJJ034866 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:26:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from colo.khms.westfalen.de (Debian-exim@colo.khms.westfalen.de [213.239.196.208]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i92FQi4R034852 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:26:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kaih@khms.westfalen.de) Received: from khms.vpn ([10.172.192.2]:59701 helo=khms.westfalen.de ident=Debian-exim) by colo.khms.westfalen.de with asmtp (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA:16) (Exim 4.34) id 1CDlkX-0007BR-Kt for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:24:41 +0200 Received: from root (helo=khms.westfalen.de) by khms.westfalen.de with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CDlkM-0008Hb-Jz for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:24:30 +0200 Received: by khms.westfalen.de (CrossPoint v3.12d.kh14 R/C435); 02 Oct 2004 17:02:27 +0200 Date: 02 Oct 2004 12:05:00 +0200 From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Message-ID: <9I4pzYkXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> In-Reply-To: <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-01 X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh14 R/C435 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? References: <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail. X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote on 29.09.04 in <878yatsz7l.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>: > Control messages should not, in general, be crossposted to other > newsgroups than they one that they affect. That never seemed right to me. Surely group-list changing ones should be crossposted to a designated control message group for the hierarchy in question. >David Lawrence was the one who > first taught me the problems caused by doing so. For example, when people > form a habit of crossposting control messages to alt.config, someone > limiting what hierarchies in alt.* they receive, they still ends up > getting control messages for the hierarchies they don't want. Frankly, I have trouble coming up with a reason why that's bad. From where I sit, that's an intended result. MfG Kai