headers
Charles Lindsey | 3 Oct 2005 19:02
Picon
Picon

Paging Henry Spencer


Has anybody had recent contact with Henry? His last known mail address on
this list was henry <at> spsystems.net. The only mail exchanger for
spsystems.net is spsystems.net which has IP address 216.126.83.115. But it
is not pingable, and does not respond on port 25.

--

-- 
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: chl <at> clerew.man.ac.uk      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
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 4 Oct 2005 20:31
Picon

Re: #1053 2.1 Relationship to 2822 - revised text


--On fredag, september 30, 2005 13:26:46 +0000 Charles Lindsey 
<chl <at> clerew.man.ac.uk> wrote:

>> Articles are conformant if they use the "GMT" timezone, as specified
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^
>                                                  <zone>
>> in section 3.1.2.

OK.

>
> If those two paragraphs starting "Articles are ..." were moved two
> paragraphs higher, it would be clearer, and the wording could be
> simplified slightly ("following" rather than "mentioned below").

OK (judgment call, but I'll go along).

With that, I'm declaring the ticket "text accepted".
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 4 Oct 2005 20:42
Picon

Re: #1052 Changes from RFC 2822


--On fredag, september 30, 2005 13:58:18 +0000 Charles Lindsey 
<chl <at> clerew.man.ac.uk> wrote:

>
> In <D37ADF6A70898588BF846BAC <at> gloppen.hjemme.alvestrand.no> Harald Tveit
> Alvestrand <harald <at> alvestrand.no> writes:
>
>> Updated text:
>
>> Appendix C.  Differences from RFC 2822
>
>>   This appendix lists the differences between the syntax allowed by the
>>   Netnews Article Format (this document) as compared to the Internet
>>   Message Format, specifically [RFC2822].
>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 		  as specified in
>
> That ensures that we do not actually take a position one way or the other
> on the religious question of whether there is such a thing as "THE
> Internet Message Format" (some read RFC 2822 as specifying there is;
> others read it as applying only within the framework of "electronic
> mail").

Accepted (don't buy the reasoning, but suggestion makes the text clearer).

>
>>   The Netnews article format is a strict subset of the Internet Message
>>   Format; all Netnews articles conform to the syntax of [RFC2822].
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 4 Oct 2005 20:46
Picon

Re: #1046 Security considerations for boundaries - text proposed


--On fredag, september 30, 2005 13:29:14 +0000 Charles Lindsey 
<chl <at> clerew.man.ac.uk> wrote:

> In <7EC172519B5E893CD5D4F031 <at> gloppen.hjemme.alvestrand.no> Harald Tveit
> Alvestrand <harald <at> alvestrand.no> writes:
>
>> A somewhat different rewrite from Frank's suggested text, to be appended
>> to  section 5:
>
>> MIME security considerations are discussed in [RFC2046].
>> Note that the full range of encodings allowed for parameters in
>> [RFC2046] and [RFC2231] permits constructs that simple parsers will parse
>> correctly; examples of hard-to-parse constructs are:
>
> ITYM "that simple parsers might fail to parse correctly".

Good catch (I missed a "not", but your text is better). Text updated.

Status changed to "text accepted".
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 4 Oct 2005 20:49
Picon

Resolving tickets #1003, 1029


Having had no comments on my message of Sept 29, I'm calling these two 
tickets "text accepted" and "no change needed", respectively.

With that, only #1047 is left of the pre-05 tickets.

                    Harald
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 4 Oct 2005 22:42
Picon

Some stats on identifiers.....


another result of the wonderful log set I received.... a script run over 
one million Path: headers gave:

7592 different names
2848 domain names - occur 7364712
53 IPv4 addresses - occur 34377
758 Fidonet addresses - occur 66665
366 trailing POSTED - occur 194242
168 trailing MISMATCH - occur 87192
321 something else - occur 1503171

Of 2848 domain-like names, 2182 had an A record
751 had an MX record, and 751 had both

666 had neither.

(In order to get these numbers, I had to do some tricks, for instance 
dropping anything after POSTED in the path, whether that was alone or 
within a "hostname.POSTED" - because at least one site injected a seemingly 
random hex number into the path after the POSTED... I also dropped all 
names occuring 5 or fewer times, for the same reason.)

Conclusion, sort of:

There aren't that many non-domain-like names around.
But those that are there are important.

                       Harald
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 5 Oct 2005 00:14
Picon

#1101 empty bodies


Based on discussion:

Resolving to "no change needed". There are empty bodies in the wild.
USEAGE may warn that it's good practice not to generate them.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 5 Oct 2005 12:53
Picon

#1078 3.1.5 Newsgroup header in email


I don't like the way Charles' suggested text sits in the paragraph.

He suggests that the paragarph start:

3.1.5  Newsgroups

   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]).

This seems to put the email stuff up front. And I think it could be simpler 
without using 2119 language.

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. 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]).

Makes sense?
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 5 Oct 2005 14:42
Picon
Picon

Re: #1101 empty bodies


In <A3D9EC19B742F030597F834B <at> gloppen.hjemme.alvestrand.no> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<harald <at> alvestrand.no> writes:

>Based on discussion:

>Resolving to "no change needed". There are empty bodies in the wild.
>USEAGE may warn that it's good practice not to generate them.

In the absence of being able to contact Henry to ask for more information
on why he chose to outlaw them in s-o-1036, I think that resolution is
sound.

--

-- 
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: chl <at> clerew.man.ac.uk      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
Charles Lindsey | 5 Oct 2005 14:57
Picon
Picon

Re: Some stats on identifiers.....


In <28EE6AD7D456CB8176A80039 <at> gloppen.hjemme.alvestrand.no> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<harald <at> alvestrand.no> writes:

>another result of the wonderful log set I received.... a script run over 
>one million Path: headers gave:

>7592 different names
>2848 domain names - occur 7364712
>53 IPv4 addresses - occur 34377
>758 Fidonet addresses - occur 66665
>366 trailing POSTED - occur 194242
>168 trailing MISMATCH - occur 87192

Which means that there are 168 well-used sites that ought to be sorting
out the problem with their peers :-( .

>321 something else - occur 1503171

That doesn't add up to 7592. I presume it means that there were 3246
"barewords" not otherwise classifiable, but in that case what is
"something else"?

>Conclusion, sort of:

>There aren't that many non-domain-like names around.
>But those that are there are important.

Certainly those 3246 barewords are important, if my arithmetic is correct.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane