Subject: Re: #1021 Single component newsgroups (Re: Definition of "private" (Re: #1021: USEFOR 3.1.5 Newsgroups - suggested texts)

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:03:38 +0200

--On torsdag, juni 30, 2005 20:29:24 +0000 Charles Lindsey 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I think that's the consensus of the group at the moment:
>
>> It's not sensible for the article *format* standard to say anything
>> about  single component newsgroup names. They should be permitted in
>> syntax.
>
>> We'll return to the topic with USEAGE (if we get that far).
>
> OK, I could take the single-component newsgroup-names to USEAGE, but it
> seems that the intent of Harald's latest proposal is to leave the rest of
> these "funny" newsgroup-names (control.*, junk.*, to.*,
> all-digit-components, etc.) in USEFOR.  Is that understanding correct?

That is correct. People have argued (with arguments that seem to me 
reasonable) that trying to use these as normal newsgroup names will in fact 
cause technical problems for at least part of the existing USENET; this is 
not the case for the single-component newsgroup name.

                 Harald

---

From: Graham Drabble <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 23:02:11 +0100

On 30 Jun 2005 "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]> wrote in
news:[email-masked]: 

> 
> In <AEF08FC6BEDD4E5AABF1F47A@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> Harald
> Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes: 
> 
>>It's not sensible for the article *format* standard to say
>>anything about single component newsgroup names. They should be
>>permitted in syntax. 
> 
> OK, I could take the single-component newsgroup-names to USEAGE,
> but it seems that the intent of Harald's latest proposal is to
> leave the rest of these "funny" newsgroup-names (control.*,
> junk.*, to.*, all-digit-components, etc.) in USEFOR.  Is that
> understanding correct? 

My view is that certainly all digit components should go to USEAGE 
and possibly others. All digit components only hurt a server whose 
admin has added the group, it doesn't harm if it is in a Newsgroups 
header or a Control header.

I don't understand what happens if you post to the others well enough 
to be able to comment.

-- 
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 20:49:52 GMT

>header or a Control header.

No, all digit components can actually break things so long as servers are
implemented the way they usually are (see reply by Russ a week or so
back). It is unreasonable to expect those servers to change their
implementations because too many user agents depend on them being the way
they are.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:22:03 -0700

Charles Lindsey <[email-masked]> writes:

> No, all digit components can actually break things so long as servers
> are implemented the way they usually are (see reply by Russ a week or so
> implementations because too many user agents depend on them being the
> way they are.

I think Graham's point is that they won't break the server unless the
server creates the group, and a server with such a constraint shouldn't
allow the group to be created.

I think it's still an interoperability concern, but I can see the valid
point there.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:43:50 GMT

>allow the group to be created.

Yes, USEPRO will make suitably discouraging noises of that nature as soon
as USEFOR has settled on the list of what is to be forbidden/whatever.

>I think it's still an interoperability concern, but I can see the valid

Yes, I agree it is an interoperability concern, and so warrants
appropriate RFC 2114 language in USEFOR.

---

From: Graham Drabble <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 21:15:44 +0100

On 06 Jul 2005 "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]> wrote in
news:[email-masked]: 

>>I think it's still an interoperability concern, but I can see the
>>valid point there.
> 
 
The problem is that we have no way of determing all the different 
things that will cause trouble. If I were to create news.out locally 
then I'm pretty sure it would cause Hamster some problems. The 
solution is that I won't create it even if a newgroup is sent. If I 
decide I want the group I'll change software (or try and patch 
hamster). To me it's a far better idea to tell admins to be careful 
what they add (and possibly warn creators of any widespread pitfalls) 
than to try and ban groups that will only cause a problem where the 
admin lets them.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:25:09 GMT

>things that will cause trouble.

Sure, but where we _do_ know of a problem, we should fix it. The problem
with all-digit components has been recognized for donkey's years.

> If I were to create news.out locally 
>solution is that I won't create it even if a newgroup is sent.

And USEPRO will say something like that (I am just waiting for the USEFOR
text on this matter to stabilise before proposing text for USEPRO).

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:25:09 GMT