Subject: Re: #1078 3.1.5 Newsgroup header in email

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 12:08:54 -0700 (PDT)

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>I suggest instead adding to the end of the section, after the stuff on the 
>non-permitted newsgroup names:

>  If a Newsgroups: header appears in email, it indicates that the
>  message has been posted to a newsgroup.

Doesn't match reality. Some existing clients leave the header in
email-only replies, some leave it out of the email side of dual-posted
replies, and some only include it in true dual-posted replies. Even if
you try to prohibit it now, it will still happen.

That's why Jacob (and I) were working on Posted-And-Mailed. That header
was supposed to be new and a unique indicator without the baggage of
existing usage.

  If a Newsgroups: header field appears in email, its meaning is 
  undefined. Some messaging clients leave the Newsgroups header field
  in email-only replies to news messages; some leave the field only
  in messages both posted to news and sent via email. It is impossible to
  determine any useful information about the destination(s) of an
  email message that contains the Newsgroups header field from that 
  field, since that header field is undefined in email.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:25:49 +0200

--On onsdag, oktober 05, 2005 12:08:54 -0700 John Stanley 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I suggest instead adding to the end of the section, after the stuff on
>> the  non-permitted newsgroup names:
>

So what?
Some clients won't be conformant with what we suggest.

That's news?

                  Harald

---

From: Richard Clayton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 23:16:49 +0100

In message <[email-masked]>, John
Stanley <[email-masked]> writes

>Doesn't match reality. 

I agree with John here ... there's a wide range of existing use, so you
can conclude whatever you want when you see it. Trying to list some good
reasons for its meaning will raise expectations unwisely -- and any push
back to other (unendorsed) usage is very unlikely, because no email
software (that has any sense) is going to take any dramatic action upon
seeing it. The only sane thing for such software to examine when
deciding if the article is arriving in multiple media is Message-ID :(

However, there is some use (I assume, I've never dealt with incoming
email traffic as a moderator) in having the header in the email that
arrives for moderation. So the earlier text

  If a Newsgroups: header appears in email, it indicates that the
  message has been posted to a newsgroup. This can happen if a newsgroup
  is gatewayed into email, if a message is sent out both through email
  and through Netnews, or if a submitted article is emailed to a
  moderator for approval (see [USEPRO]).

for which John suggests

>  field, since that header field is undefined in email.

might be usefully reduced (with of course the addition of "field"), in
my opinion, to:

  If a Newsgroups: header field appears in email, its meaning is
  generally undefined. However, when a submitted article is emailed to a
  moderator for approval (see [USEPRO]) then the moderator is entitled
  to take note of the header as indicating the newsgroups for which the
  author is requesting it to be posted.

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.         Benjamin Franklin

---

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 15:19:47 -0700 (PDT)

> Some clients won't be conformant with what we suggest.

No, it isn't news. The 'so what' is that it is wrong to knowingly
misconstrue the reality of the issue. The reality of the issue is that
clients already exist that do not follow your rules for the use of the
Newsgroups header, and we know they exist and will continue to do so. And
they exist outside the scope of our standard. And our standard isn't
supposed to be a suggestion, your proposed text made a clear statement
about the meaning of a header field in an email message. A statement
that is incorrect in many, if not most, cases.

Just one simple example: if I am using an EMAIL client to read the output
of a news to mail gateway and reply to the poster using email, I am 
operating in the email domain and follow email standards. Email standards
do NOT define Newsgroups, and a proper email client ignores headers it
does not know. The result is a message that you are trying to tell someone
was posted to a certain newsgroup; the truth is it never was posted 
in news at all. 

Your definition of that header in email leads to exactly the problem that
I started out trying to solve with posted-and-mailed: someone gets an
email with a Newsgroups header and either they or their client assumes
that the content was posted to news, so they decide that following up in
news is an appropriate venue, even though the email was sent privately.
That results in the quoted parts of private email (sometimes the entire
content) being posted publicly, and many people feel that that is a
serious breach of netiquette.

You can say that Newsgroups appearing in email means something specific,
but the truth is that it has no such meaning. It never has had a specific
meaning, and back when we (not this group, the one working on a
posted-and-mailed draft) discussed this there wasn't even a consensus 
that it WAS supposed to mean anything. My naive hope what that we could
simply define it to mean just what you said it means. I was disabused of
that hope pretty quickly. The split was about even between "this message
WAS posted to this newsgroup" and "this message is an email reply to
something posted to that newsgroup", with a small contingent of "this
email message contains an undefined header that means nothing". At the
time, two major newsreading systems (trn et.al and Pine) did things
opposite ways. Whether Pine has changed behaviour or not I don't know; trn
has not.

The only thing we can say about a Newsgroups header field appearing in
email is that it is undefined (because that is what the email standards
say). We can expand that somewhat and caution users against assuming that
it means anything, but that's just saying "undefined" in more words.
Replacement text has already been provided. Text that reflects the actual
situation and how it will likely remain for quite some time to come.

Do we document reality or not?

Do I get better than a "so what" sarcastic response next time, or is
that the appropriate level of discussion for this group? I thought I was
supposed to state calmly why I disagreed with something and provide
alternative text, but when I do that, I get "that's news?"

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:10:48 +0200

(header note - for those who are not interested in philosophical 
differences, there's a paragraph marked *** POSSIBLE WAY FORWARD *** at the 
end of the message.)

> that is incorrect in many, if not most, cases.

I'm sorry - this is (going to be) a voluntary standard that people can 
claim conformance to.
I think the term "suggestion" is a quite apt description of its status.

In this case: "If you claim to follow this standard, you will generate this 
header under the folllowing circumstances, and you will interpret this 
header as if the following circumstances had been the reason for its 
generation".

> was posted to a certain newsgroup; the truth is it never was posted

If you blindly copy headers you don't know the meaning of into the headers 
of your reply, your email reader is FOOBAR anyway. Do you also copy the 
Content-MD5 header and the Delivered-To header?

There is no standard anywhere that I know of that says "when replying, copy 
all unknown headers into the reply"; if you know of one in the IETF domain, 
please tell us, so that I can draft an urgent standards action to have it 
deprecated because it's truly, completely, utterly broken.

But I may have misunderstood your example.

> serious breach of netiquette.

Yes.
And this misunderstanding will continue to happen no matter what our 
standard specifies, too. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't take a position.

> opposite ways. Whether Pine has changed behaviour or not I don't know; trn

Could you please identify the group working on "posted-and-mailed" (which 
mailing list, and approximate timeframe, if it was an open group)?

> Do we document reality or not?

We make a standard. As John Klensin said near the start of the DRUMS work 
that led to 2821/2822, "when practice exists, our standard should either 
bless or curse it. Ignoring it is harmful". (quote is not exact. Too many 
years ago.)

In this case, we have two areas of application where the field clearly 
makes sense to include in email: Gatewayed news messages and messages 
forwarded to moderators.
(note that the semantics is subtly different: In the first case, the 
message has been posted *and distributed* in News; in the second case, the 
message has been posted but *not* distributed. I picked the term "posted" 
for a reason.)

*** POSSIBLE WAYS FORWARD ***

We can choose the same opt-out that we did for References, saying "other 
messages may use this header; that's OK", or we can say "other messages may 
use this header; that's broken and their problem".

Or we can revert to usefor-05 and ignore the issue.

*** END POSSIBLE WAYS FORWARD ***

> alternative text, but when I do that, I get "that's news?"

Hope this is better. You and I apparently have quite different opinions on 
what the role of a standard is in the face of self-conflicting practice on 
the Inernet.

---

From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:19:38 -0400

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

[snip]

> bless or curse it. Ignoring it is harmful". (quote is not exact. Too many 

Didn't your text ignore existing practice? Your text stated that the 
presense of a header field meant something. John politely replied that 
there is existing practice to insert the header field when it was not 
posted.  That had to be men

[snip]

> what the role of a standard is in the face of self-conflicting practice on 

When there is self-conflicting practice, the standard should mention 
the existence of practice that is widespread and not in conflict with
previous standards.

To me, that's part of the meaning of "particular attention to 
backwards compatibility" in the charter.

That makes your other statement a totally inappropriate guide for 
authoring a practical standard:

 > "If you claim to follow this standard, you will generate this

I've passed my limit of arguing that engineering is about crafting
real-world solutions.  That comes as a given in other IETF groups,
but has to be argued here.

Engineering standards are not position papers or descriptions of a
theoretical system that would work if EVERYONE conformed.

Practical standards cannot include text that leads implementors into 
making big blunders such as posting quoted text of private email.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 14:02:44 GMT

>you try to prohibit it now, it will still happen.

Exactly. Jacob raised this problem years ago. There are basically two
existing practices (one meaning that this email also sent to the given
newsgroup, and one meaning the opposite). That is an intolerable
situation, and the only sensible way to get out of it is to bless one of
the usages in the standard and deprecate the other. Yes, it will take some
while for the "wrong" usage to disappear, but leaving the meaning
undefined for ever would be even worse.

We decided to fix it that way years ago; I explained to Jacob what we were
doing, and he declared himself satisfied thereby.

>That's why Jacob (and I) were working on Posted-And-Mailed.

Yes, a Posted-And-Mailed header would be a fine tool to use in addition,
but we decided some while back not to include it in our present standard
(nor Mail-Copies-To).

BTW, Harald's full text, which you snipped, was:

It is necessary to mention the special usage for moderators, but that last
bit is not quite right because then it does not indicate that the message
_has_ been posted to a newsgroup - rather that it (hopefully) will be. So
a better last bit would be:

   In addition, the Newsgroups header field has a special significance
   when sending email to a moderator [USEPRO].

-- 
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: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:12:20 +0200

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
 
> for those who are not interested in philosophical
> differences
[...]

The philosophical issues are quite interesting, but I also
want to see what my stoneage UA actually does:  from my POV
USEFOR is a "newsgroup", and my UA offers Re:News, Re:Mail,
and Re:Both.  I took the latter and added my own address
manually.

What I expect is that all get this article somehow via the
list, and we get it additionally as "private mail".  But my
UA won't warn me that there's an interesting "Newsgroups:"
in the mail or an interesting "To:" in the news (my POV as
GMaNe user), and that's _bad_ => it has to be addressed in
USEAGE if we sanction "Newsgroups:" as _mail_ header field.

The real problems:  If I get unsolicited courtesy copies,
reply by mail, but later I see that it was no private mail
but only a courtesy copy, then I'm seriously annoyed.

The opposite case, public reply to something that was only
a PM, would be worse, but an UA adding bogus "Newsgroups:"
header fields to mails is definitely broken.  It can still
happen in practice (user tries to post and mail, only one
of these attempts makes it), but then the user at least
_intended_ to post and won't be annoyed if quotes of his
pseudo-private mail show up in public, i.e. in a followup.

So for that case USEFOR should say that the _presence_ of
a "Newsgroups:" header field in mail always indicates the
_intention_ to post+mail.

Same idea as "Cc: list" for mail replies also sent to the
list.  Of course you could be lost to guess what an obscure
"Newsgroups: gmane.ietf.usenet.format" means, but that's a
special case, and normally I never send "courtesy copies" -
excl. Keith Moore because he wants this, and he learned how
to interpret this obscure "Newsgroups:" header field in his
mail => private problem of Keith, already solved. 

However the _absence_ of a "Newsgroups;" header field in
mail MUST NOT be interpreted as "not posted", many (?) UAs
won't use it.

Again the same idea as for mailing lists, the _absence_ of
"To: list" or "Cc: list" in a mail doesn't guarantee "not
posted" - for that purpose we'd use some very visible "off
list" in the body or in the subject.  And that could be
also stated in USEAGE.
                        Bye, Frank

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:45:17 +0200

Result of my experiment:

> my UA won't warn me that there's an interesting "Newsgroups:"
> in the mail
[...]
> and that's _bad_ => it has to be addressed in USEAGE if we
> sanction "Newsgroups:" as _mail_ header field.

Wrong, with Options -> Show headers -> Normal I do get a very
visible "Newsgroups: gmane.ietf.usenet.format" in my mail.

They really knew how to implement good UAs about 10 years ago,
"mozilla 3." rocks, it should get a honorary GNKSA. :-)  Bye

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:03:37 +0200

>    when sending email to a moderator [USEPRO].

Charles,

what do you mean by the term "posted"?

I've always thought of it as "the NNTP transaction where the article leaves 
my newsreader and enters the mysterious guts of the news system" - the 
transaction occuring between the "posting agent" and the "injecting agent".

You seem to be using it here in the meaning of "the transaction where the 
message is finally given to a newsserver that decides it is ready for 
distribution" - between the "injecting agent" and the "relaying agent".

Alternatively, what you write could indicate that you regard the whole 
process of submission, approval and injection as "posting" - but that means 
that we can have articles where the question "is it posted or not" doesn't 
have a definite answer..... it is "inside the process"....

                         Harald

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 11:27:12 GMT

>the existence of practice that is widespread and not in conflict with

I agree. Where a standard specifies something contrary to some existing
practice, it is at the very least polite to draw attention to the need for
existing practice to change.

We have had various texts covering this. Way back in the article drafts,
we had:

   The Newsgroups-header is intended for use in Netnews articles rather
   than in email messages. It MAY be used in an email message to
   indicate that it is a copy also posted to the listed newsgroups, in
   which case the inclusion of a Posted-And-Mailed header (6.9) would
   also be appropriate. However, it SHOULD NOT be used in an email-only
   reply to a Netnews article (thus the "inheritable" property of this
   header applies only to followups to a newsgroup, and not to followups
   to the poster).

For USEFOR, I suggested something a little shorter:

   The Newsgroups header field specifies the newsgroup(s) to which the
   article is posted. It MAY be used in an Email message to
   indicate that it was also posted as an article to those newsgroups,
   but SHOULD NOT be used in Email for any other purpose (such as an
   email-only reply to a News From [email-masked] Sat Oct 08 09:48:51 2005
To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:22681
Newsgroups: local.usefor
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: #1078 3.1.5 Newsgroup header in email
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 11:27:12 GMT
Lines: 59
Sender: [email-masked]

>the existence of practice that is widespread and not in conflict with

I agree. Where a standard specifies something contrary to some existing
practice, it is at the very least polite to draw attention to the need for
existing practice to change.

We have had various texts covering this. Way back in the article drafts,
we had:

   The Newsgroups-header is intended for use in Netnews articles rather
   than in email messages. It MAY be used in an email message to
   indicate that it is a copy also posted to the listed newsgroups, in
   which case the inclusion of a Posted-And-Mailed header (6.9) would
   also be appropriate. However, it SHOULD NOT be used in an email-only
   reply to a Netnews article (thus the "inheritable" property of this
   header applies only to followups to a newsgroup, and not to followups
   to the poster).

For USEFOR, I suggested something a little shorter:

   The Newsgroups header field specifies the newsgroup(s) to which the
   article is posted. It MAY be used in an Email message to
   indicate that it was also posted as an article to those newsgroups,
   but SHOULD NOT be used in Email for any other purpose (such as an
   email-only reply to a News article). Exceptionally, it can also
   appear in an article emailed to a moderator (see [USEPRO]).

Harald preferred using non-2119 language, which is fair enough, but he
omitted to mention that some existing software might produce emails not
conforming to what he had written. That needs to be fixed. I don't mind
the precise wording, so long as the points are made.

I agree with what Harald has said philosophically - we just need a wording
that implies the same thing.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 11:45:48 GMT

>what do you mean by the term "posted"?

Well we don't actually define the term anywhere (whereas USEPRO does
define "injected" rather precisely). Loosely speaking, if I put a letter
in the tray in my employers mail room, I would say I had "posted" it. But
strictly speaking it is not posted it until the mailing clerk has taken it
to a "real" postbox (post office/whatever).

So warticle). Exceptionally, it can also
   appear in an article emailed to a moderator (see [USEPRO]).

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 11:45:48 GMT

So what you had written was pedantically true. But in fact the intended
meaning of Newsgroups in an email was that there was another copy of it on
usenet (modulo cockups by relayers, etc) _in_addition_to the email that
you have just received. And that is clearly not the case in mail to
moderators, so a small caveat to cover that situation is in order.

So here is another suggestion:

    If a Newsgroups header field appears in an email, it indicates that
    the same message also appears as an article in a newsgroup (e.g. the
    email was a courtesy copy of the article, or it arose from some
    gatewaying). Some existing software may include this header field in
    email replies to Netnews articles, but this practice causes confusion
    and is deprecated.

    In addition, the Newsgroups header field also has a special
    significance when sending email to a moderator [USEPRO].

hat you had written was pedantically true. But in fact the intended
meaning of Newsgroups in an email was that there was another copy of it on
usenet (modulo cockups by relayers, etc) _in_addition_to the email that
you have just received. And that is clearly not the case in mail to
moderators, so a small caveat to cover that situation is in order.

So here is another suggestion:

    If a Newsgroups header field appears in an email, it indicates that
    the same message also appears as an article in a newsgroup (e.g. the
    email was a courtesy copy of the article, or it arose from some
    gatewaying). Some existing software may include this header field in
    email replies to Netnews articles, but this practice causes confusion
    and is deprecated.

    In addition, the Newsgroups header field also has a special
    significance when sending email to a moderator [USEPRO].

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 18:28:31 +0200

Wearing my WG chair hat (and not my technical contributor hat, which 
continues to argue unabashedly for a single meaning), I determine that 
there's no consensus in the WG for standardizing a single meaning for the 
Newsgroups: header in email.

I'll draft some text based on John Stanley's to say that this document 
doesn't define such a meaning, and propose that.

                Harald

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:41:54 GMT

In <A9AE5597B737D5FB45799554@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

>Wearing my WG chair hat (and not my technical contributor hat, which=20
>continues to argue unabashedly for a single meaning), I determine that=20
>there's no consensus in the WG for standardizing a single meaning for the=20

>I'll draft some text based on John Stanley's to say that this document=20

That was not my reading of the contributions. Several people seemed happy
to accept the intent of the definition, but were doubtful about the manner
in which it was introduced, or whether it was proper to introduce it. I
think John was the only one actually wanting it to be explicitly
undefined.

If your ruling remains, what could properly be said in USEAGE?

---

From: Richard Clayton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:07:40 +0100

In message <[email-masked]>, Charles Lindsey
<[email-masked]> writes
>That was not my reading of the contributions. 

so there's no consensus on their being no consensus ... ah well

>Several people seemed happy

not entirely

        http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/msg02523.html

though there have been some helpful further comments since on what
moderators are likely to assume about incoming email

>If your ruling remains, what could properly be said in USEAGE?

John's comments on the various different meanings would at least
illuminate the issue for developers who had only been exposed to some of
the examples.  I think the most sensible thing would be to suggest that
adding a Newsgroups: header field to email is most unlikely to be a
useful thing to do -- leastwise when viewed in the round

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:06:49 GMT

>useful thing to do -- leastwise when viewed in the round

I think it was clear that, of the two meanings currently applied to
Newsgroups in mail, nobody wanted to bless the "this is an email reply to
a news article" version, so the choice was between blessing the "this is
both posted and emailed" version and blessing neither.

I think that second usage, at least, is going to continue whether we bless
it or not, because of the general principle that the two versions of the
message/article should be as similar as possible (i.e. both containing a
Newsgroups: and both containing a Cc: (even a To:)). Ideally, the only
differences should be in the tracing headers (Received:, Path: and maybe
Injection-Info/Date:) and in the Content-Transfer-Encoding.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:33:30 +0200

> think John was the only one actually wanting it to be explicitly

My reading is that you and I argued for the single meaning to be 
standardized.

John Stanley, Richard Clayton and Forrest J. Cavalier argued against it, 
and I don't think that Frank Ellermann was arguing one side or the other - 
he seemed to be just discussing the issues.

This is based on the 18 messages with "#1078" in them posted to the list 
over the last 6 days; you may have other input.

> If your ruling remains, what could properly be said in USEAGE?

At this time, I don't care.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:46:08 GMT

>he seemed to be just discussing the issues.

My reading of Forrest's message was that he was not concerned particularly
with whether we made such a rule, but that he was very concerned that, if
we did so, it needed to be clear that there was a conflict with existing
practice, and there should be some guidance given as to how to resolve
that. I agreed with him, and even proposed a revision of your wording.

But he can speak for himself if he thinks I have misinterpreted him.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:50:37 +0200

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>>> Wearing my WG chair hat (and not my technical contributor
>>> hat

Contributors shouldn't wear hats... ;-)  I had another stupid
idea:  If we can't define the semantics of Newsgroups: in mail,
because this is USEFOR and not MESSFOR, then it's our duty to
define the semantics of To: and Cc: in news.

We could say that To: and Cc: in news is used to indicate the
intention to post+mail.

 From there implementors and 2822bis would know what to do with
the opposite case Newsgroups: in mail.

                              Bye, Frank

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:14:43 GMT

>We could say that To: and Cc: in news is used to indicate the

Actually, we did say something like that in the old -article- drafts,
except that we left it open as to whether those headers were actually
included in the news version (though actually it is quite a sensible
idea).

---

From: Graham Drabble <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:28:15 +0100

On 08 Oct 2005 "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]> wrote in
news:[email-masked]: 

>    The Newsgroups header field specifies the newsgroup(s) to which
>    the article is posted. It MAY be used in an Email message to
>    indicate that it was also posted as an article to those
>    newsgroups, but SHOULD NOT be used in Email for any other
>    purpose (such as an email-only reply to a News article).
>    Exceptionally, it can also appear in an article emailed to a
>    moderator (see [USEPRO]). 

I would have thought that most emails to moderators would have a 
newsgroup header present.

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:48:07 +0200

Graham Drabble wrote:
 
> I would have thought that most emails to moderators would
> have a newsgroup header present.

That case still matches "intention to post".  But it's an
obvious case, unnecessary to mention it in USEFOR if others
think that we shouldn't mention this issue at all in USEFOR.

Otherwise I'd try to add some caveat like "moderators might
wish to disable PRA on their system (or at their ISP) while
the IESG ponders which of the two appeals is worse" <g>  Bye