headers
Charles Lindsey | 1 May 1998 12:31
Picon
Picon

Re: Draft release--attribution lines

In <Pine.OSF.3.96.980430091112.16551C-100000 <at> worf.netins.net> Jonathan Grobe
<grobe <at> worf.netins.net> writes:

>And who made the decision? As I read the discussion you presented
>a proposal for a long complicated  machine parsable attribution line
>including a personal name surrounded by quotes.
>The substantial majority of people who commented said that they wanted
>a short simple readable attribution line, and that putting a person's real
>name in quotes was rude. I suggest you go back to the discussion and
>count the number of people expressing differing various opinions.

I made the "long complicated machine parsable attribution line" because I
was asked to do so by the members of this list. That was months ago, long
before the discussion about rude names in quotes.

Then we decided to put out a draft, giving a snapshot of where we were in
the middle of March, with the intent that it should be available for some
IETF meeting in Los Angeles.

Then the draft appeared (too late for Los Angeles).

Then people started asking for major changes (like reviewing that long
list, and asserting that names in quotes were "rude"). Fine, but that is
for the next draft. In any case, there was no consensus on the "rude" bit,
and no alternative delimeters were suggested (if the attribution lines are
to be parseable, you must have some delimeters of some sort).

>This discussion of attribution lines was the example I had in mind when
>I queried Dan as to why he kept asking for comments when he didn't
>implement the ones people had already made anyway.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 1 May 1998 12:16
Picon
Picon

Re: <0.3> *group control messages

In <6sosWB$JcDB <at> faerber.muc.de> usenet-format-list <at> faerber.muc.de
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_Andr=E9_F=E4rber?=) writes:

>   Moderated newsgroups SHOULD be marked by appending the case sensitive  
>  text " (Moderated)" at the end.

                         ^^^^^^
                         MUST

--

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email:     chl <at> clw.cs.man.ac.uk  Web:   http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506      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
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jacob Palme | 1 May 1998 12:45
Picon
Picon

Re: Draft release --X-No-Archive header

At 18.29 +0200 98-04-29, Claus André Färber wrote:
> So, I think two headers are justified: One to advise _servers_ to adjust
> their normal expiration process, one to tell _archives_ if and how long
> they may store the article.

Only two headers?

An expiration date can either indicate the date after which
an article MUST be deleted, or a date before which an
article SHOULD not be deleted. These two uses may also need
to be separated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Palme <jpalme <at> dsv.su.se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme
Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} | 1 May 1998 15:23
Picon
Picon

Re: Authorization issues in the usefor draft

On Sun, 26 Apr 1998, Jacob Palme wrote:

> At 18.57 +0200 98-04-26, Seth Breidbart wrote:
[...]

> > Limit the cancellation to either the site or, at most, the legal
> > jurisdiction.
> 
> Do you mean using the "Distribution" header? Can it be used in
> this way?

Thoreticly yes, Practily no.  The Distributions header is quite broken.
I would prefur that local deleations where used for this rather then
cancels.  

> > >- Cancel of an article, which you dislike for political, religious
> > >  or ethical reasons. Very controversial.
> >
> > Not acceptable, period.
> 
> But how can you stop such misuse of the cancel facility?

By removeing the possablity of 3rd party cancels and only permitting 1st
party cancels.

[...]

> > NoCeM has just that.
> 
> What is NoCeM? Is it an IETF standard?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} | 1 May 1998 15:40
Picon
Picon

Re: Security Wordkins.

On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Dan Ritter wrote:

> All right, I will propose this to the group.
> 
> For inclusion in 6.6.6 Cancel:

[...]

> >	 Each hierarchy or group MAY declare its own policy on who may
> >	 issue cancels, and for what reasons.

I don't like this Hierarchy or group would lead to conflits between the
groups and the hierarchy that it is present in.

[...]

> >	 In addition, hierarchies or groups may decide policies, such
> >	 as:
> >
> >	 "Every cancel MUST accurately identify the sender. A valid
> >	 (i.e. not *.invalid) email address MUST exist in the From,
> >	 Sender or Reply-To header(s)."

This would be problematic with current cancel implinations.  The sener
line has to be forged for a 3rd party cancel to work correctly.

I'm a perl programer if you need perl programing hire me. 
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url. Support NoCeM
http://www.cit.nepean.uws.edu.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html  http://www.cm.org/ 
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 638 comments |
headers
Greg Berigan | 1 May 1998 17:28
Favicon

Re: Draft release --X-No-Archive header

usenet-format-list <at> faerber.muc.de (Claus André Färber) wrote:
>Brad Templeton <brad <at> clari.net> wrote:

>> However, the point remains that statements about archiving are really
>> attributes of expiration, and not a new header.

> I don't agree. Normally, articles are deleted from a server after a
> certain expiration period. An Expires header is either a request to
> extend this period or to delete the article from the server -- maybe
> because the article is important and should be kept longer or it is
> obsolete after a certain date. This is for plain news servers.

I agree, expiration and archivation are two different concerns and it is
useful to refer to ones preferences of these independently.  For example, a
CFV message could be set to automatically expire from servers when the vote
is completed but still remain in archives for those researching the
proposal later.

> So, I think two headers are justified: One to advise _servers_ to adjust
> their normal expiration process, one to tell _archives_ if and how long
> they may store the article.

However, I don't think we need separate _headers_ to accomplish this.  The
Expires header syntax could be expanded to allow specification of both news
server article expiration and archived article expiration.  The concepts
are related; it is the scope that is different.

But please, no boolean headers or boolean-inverting headers in the draft.
Don't even suggest a header of "X-No-Bananas: yes".
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Greg Berigan | 1 May 1998 17:35
Favicon

Re: Draft release -- .invalid

Guenther Merkens <bodo <at> bens.uni-frankfurt.de> wrote:
>At 09:28 29.04.98 GMT, Charles Lindsey wrote:

>> Dan has seen fit to
>> fix a few problems where there appeared consensus on this list (.invalid,
>> for example), but that is a bonus. He was not obliged to do so.

> Is there no possibility to get something into the from: header that
> software SHOULD warn users that want to reply by mail to
> .invalid-addresses?

The duties of a newsreader to its user is beyond the scope of this RFC.
Its duties to the rest of the net however are, and we could say something
like it "MUST NOT attempt to send mail to .invalid addresses."  What they
do about this, be it outright refusal to send or present the header with
the last 4 lines of the article or the signature for replacement, is up to
the implementors of such newsreaders.

> In my view the solution now is far from 'a bonus'. At least not for
> postmasters.

Which is why I say it must be a "MUST NOT" rather than a "SHOULD NOT".
It's bad for the net to allow them to send mail to known-invalid addresses.

--
         ,=<#)-=#  <http://incolor.inetnebr.com/wotw/> (The War of the Worlds)
    ,_--//--_,
 _-~_-(####)-_~-_  "Did you see that Parkins boy's body in the tunnels?" "Just
(#>_--'~--~`--_<#)  the photos.  Worst thing I've ever seen; kid had no face."
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jonathan Grobe | 1 May 1998 17:41
Picon

Re: Draft release --X-No-Archive header

I believe two different headers should be used.  Large numbers of
Usenet readers who do not want their posts archived are inexperienced
users. They have difficulty understanding the nuances of one command
with multiple options.

So I favor a simple Archive command with two options: Yes and No.
(with Yes being the default)

Jonathan Grobe

On Fri, 1 May 1998, Greg Berigan wrote:

> 
> I agree, expiration and archivation are two different concerns and it is
> useful to refer to ones preferences of these independently.  For example, a
> CFV message could be set to automatically expire from servers when the vote
> is completed but still remain in archives for those researching the
> proposal later.
> 
> > So, I think two headers are justified: One to advise _servers_ to adjust
> > their normal expiration process, one to tell _archives_ if and how long
> > they may store the article.
> 
> However, I don't think we need separate _headers_ to accomplish this.  The
> Expires header syntax could be expanded to allow specification of both news
> server article expiration and archived article expiration.  The concepts
> are related; it is the scope that is different.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Greg Berigan | 1 May 1998 17:47
Favicon

Re: Draft release--attribution lines

chl <at> clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) wrote:

> (the Name is the only required item, and
> that only if you have accepted what is no more than a recommended
> convention).

I still maintain that it is not a recommended convention but a restriction
in a widespread browser-newsreader which does not provide a facility to
override it.  Before Netscape came on the scene with its newsreader,
attribution lines always included the e-mail address by default and the
name only when present.

People are attributing names only because their newsreader gives them no
choice!  Convention by straightjacket is no "recommended convention" at all.

I don't think we can require the Name when it is optional for the poster to
provide it.  Otherwise the minimal attribution line can become simply
"wrote:".  The e-mail address is required.  It should be required in the
attribution.  (And classic addressing should still be acceptable such as
that used in this message's attribution.)

--
         ,=<#)-=#  <http://incolor.inetnebr.com/wotw/> (The War of the Worlds)
    ,_--//--_,
 _-~_-(####)-_~-_  "Did you see that Parkins boy's body in the tunnels?" "Just
(#>_--'~--~`--_<#)  the photos.  Worst thing I've ever seen; kid had no face."
Permalink | Reply | 49 comments |
headers
Jonathan Grobe | 2 May 1998 00:48
Picon

Re: Draft release--Message ID

1. During discussion there was some feeling that many Message-Ids are
excessively long (PINE being notorious in this regard). Is there any
feeling that should be a suggested length limit mentioned? What limit?

2. Should an algorithm be given in a Note which will generate unique
message IDs?

Jonathan Grobe.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane