Subject: Re: #1078 3.1.5 Newsgroup header in email

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:51:32 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>Ah! So you would accept defining it as proposed, but believed that we had
>no power to do that.

If you do not stop putting words in my mouth, I will renew my call to the 
Chair to have you replaced as an editor for this group. Chair, if you want
to prevent another blowup, I suggest you talk to the person who is holding 
the match.

At one point in time, a very long time ago, I thought it could be defined
and the problem reduced. As I've already said here, I do not think that
can be done anymore. In addition to that, we have no charter to define
email  headers.

>The point is that such appearances of Newsgroups in email always arise
>from news agents doing things which maybe they shouldn't be doing.

That statement is patently false. Unless you truly believe that a news
agent should not store the Newsgroups header field in an article that it 
saves to disk, then they can quite easily arise from email agents doing
things with articles that news agents did exactly the right thing with.

>And
>surely declaring what news agents should or should not be doing is very
>much our business.

A statement telling an email client what a header field that it sees
in email means is outside the scope of our charter. A statement telling
users what a header field in email means, when that statement is patently
false, is well outside the scope of any IETF working group charter.

Were the text in question a simple "news agents (MUST/SHOULD) NOT insert a
Newsgroups header field into email-only replies to news messages", that
would be one thing. While it seems to imply the only time one would see a
Newsgroups header field appearing in email would be for posted and mailed
copies, it does not actually say that. You'd then have to get around the 
tiny detail that sometimes a news agent does not know that the message it 
is sending to email isn't going to be posted, too, so having it know when
it is prohibited from doing something is not always possible.

But to say that the only time one sees it in email is when the message has
been posted and mailed is patently incorrect and well outside the scope.

>However, the matter is easily settled. 

Yes. I supplied text that both discusses the existance of the header
and the multiple possible meanings, as well as the fact that it is 
undefined. Telling the truth is the easy solution.

>Harald is very familiar with what
>is allowed by the IETF and seemed to think it was OK.

The problem with Harald's solution is two-fold. Not only is it an attempt
at defining the behaviour of email agents while processing email messages,
it is INCORRECT on the face of it since it tries to claim that there is 
only one meaning for the Newsgroups header in email, and that is simply
not true.

>But, for the removal
>of all doubt, it would be a simple matter to ask the IESG whether it would
>be in order for us to do it. It is, after all, "our" header.

Not when it appears in an email message. Why is it that those who argue
the loudest that RFC2822 applies ONLY to email because even though the 
title says "Internet Message Format" it talks mostly about email, are the 
same ones who feel that "USENET News Standard" applies to email as well?

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:12:04 GMT

>it is prohibited from doing something is not always possible.

Yes, I would regard that as an acceptable alternative way of tackling this
problem. It would be said in USEPRO, of course, and would need careful
wording to cover borderline cases such as you mention (I guess that, if in
doubt, it is better for the agent to omit the header).

-- 
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: [email-masked] (Ralph Babel)
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:38:31 +0200

John Stanley wrote:

> If you [Charles Lindsey] do not stop putting words
> in my mouth, I will renew my call to the Chair
> to have you replaced as an editor for this group.

Seconded. This has been going on for way too long.