Subject: Re: Issues outstanding

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:17:23 -0800 (PST)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>Of the small number of people on this group who had the patience to read
>through your interminable rants, 

Knock it off, Charles. The fact that you did not agree does not make
my arguments "interminable", nor were they "rants".

> ...ALL agreed that there was no technical difference involved.

And forty million Frenchmen weren't wrong about the Maginot line, either.

You can count the raised hands all you like, Charles, but the facts
remain: there is a significant difference between the two cases. I'd
repeat the differences again, but you'd call them 'interminable rants' in
your typical dissmissive style. I notice that YOU repeat YOUR arguments,
what few you have, again below, so if the label applies to me, it 
certainly applies to you.

>That part of this matter is CLOSED, unless you can persuade our Chair to 
>reopen it.

Since the Chair did not close it, and you are not in a position to do so,
I do not need the Chair to reopen it. You are usurping authority here, 
Charles, and I'm tired of it. 

This deal of sharing the editor's job that was put in place as a
compromise simply isn't working, Chair. Fix it.

>The choice between the two alternatives is now purely a matter of 
>preference.

This is a TECHNICAL standard, and the choice betweeen correct and 
incorrect is not supposed to be a "matter of preference". CHANGING the 
text, as you did, ought to require some justification. Do you have any 
justification for making the References header useless?

>>I keep pointing out the difference. If a non-followup MAY have a 
>>References header, you lose the ability to identify followups.

>There are two different definitions of 'followup' involved. 

Charles, it does not matter HOW you define followup for the difference
to exist. Once you say that "non-followups may have References headers" 
you remove the ability to determine what is and is not a followup. Define 
followup to be "Charles propensity for insulting those he doesn't agree 
with" if you like, it doesn't matter. Substitute "pomegranate" if you 
like. When the only way a reader can identify what is and is not a 
"pomegranate" is by the existance or lack of a References header, then 
allowing "non pomegranates" to have a References header means he can no 
longer do that. Changing from "able to identify pomegranates" to "cannot 
identify pomegranates" is a significant change, Charles, whether you are 
able to understand that or not.

I don't know any other way to say this. It's pretty simple stuff. It's a 
significant change that you have never been able to justify. And it is not
just MY opinion it is significant. If the header merited RFC2119 mandates 
up until you decided it didn't, then it is a significant change. Something 
that was considered by everyone here to be an interoperability issue 
suddenly is not. What changed?

>You persist in
>applying the definition of one alternative to the consequences which arise
>in the other alternative, and so it is no wonder you land up with
>nonsense.

You are wrong. The "consequences" of watering down the References header
has NOTHING to do with the definition of followup. You can keep pretending 
it does, but that does not make it so.

---

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:45:49 -0800 (PST)

Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>"Mailed-And-Posted: yes" is like "Killfile-Me: yes" for me,
>if the sender does not explicitly mention this in the body.
>If he mentions it explicitly, what's the point of the header ?

You just said it in your first sentence. It is very much easier to
killfile (or do any automated processing) on a standardized header than on
the entire body of a message with free-form text.

The intent was so that people could kill email that was posted and mailed.
It would appear in email. And people could kill news articles that were 
posted and mailed, for whatever reason you feel like you want to do it.