From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Apr 6 15:37:05 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21074 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 15:37:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j36JZWPx053318 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:35:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j36JZWbw053317 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:35:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j36JZUaM053311 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:35:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dinaras@cnri.reston.va.us) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20760; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 15:35:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200504061935.PAA20760@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:35:27 -0400 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Usenet Article Standard Update Working Group of the IETF. Title : News Article Format Author(s) : C. Lindsey, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt Pages : 31 Date : 2005-4-6 This document specifies the syntax of network news (Netnews) articles in the context of the 'Internet Message Format' (RFC 2822) and 'Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME)' (RFC 2045). This document supersedes RFC 1036, updating it to reflect current practice and incorporating incremental changes specified in other documents. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-4-6160717.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-4-6160717.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Apr 7 07:13:23 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08883 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:13:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j37BBewT032549 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 04:11:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j37BBeGO032548 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 04:11:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j37BBcKY032526 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 04:11:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [192.168.0.7] ([62.3.217.253]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:11:33 +0100 Message-ID: <4255153E.3080500@isode.com> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:10:54 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Issues outstanding References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ken has just published a new revision of USEFOR (03). Some comments on the changes and how they relate to the list of issues below: Charles Lindsey wrote: >Some while back I posted a list of issues (and our Chair added some more). >We have now reached the point where we cannot continue working on our >drafts until these are resolved. > >So here is the list again, with my comments on where we are at on each >one. SO PLEASE CAN WE HAVE INPUT ON THESE, especially on the ones which >still appear to be OPEN? > > >>We are coming to the point where there is little more that can be done on >>the documents we are supposed to be producing without deciding how various >>outstanding issues are to be resolved. >> >> > >1. Complaints-To > > > >>I published a list of 4 options (and invited other options) in >>http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/msg00151.html. Only three >>people have expressed any preference amongst them. I think #4 is dead, and >>#2 is the one most people could live with (but on such a small sample, >>that is hardly meaningful). >> >> >>#2 was to do it in Injection-Info rather than in a Complaints-To header, >>and to provide only a mail-complaints-to parameter (which would leave open >>the option to provide a separate url-complaints parameter as a future >>extension). >> > >I think the conclusion we reached on this was to have a >'mail-complaints-to' parameter in the Injection-Info header with an > for its parameter. And we decided not to have any provision >for URLs at this time, though a url-complaints-to parameter could be added >as a future extension if there was a demand for it. > >If that is agreed, then this issue is CLOSED, > This change is done as well as description of different parameters. >except for deciding whether >multiple
s meant you were supposed to reply to ALL of them, or to >ANY ONE of them. Input on this is still needed. > This minor issue is still open. My personal opinion is that if there are multiple email addresses they all should be treated as equal and mailing to ANY of them should suffice. > >2. Path header delimiters > > This is still open. [...] > > >3. Mail-Copies-To and Posted-And Mailed > > > >>Available options appear to be: >> >>1. Include them as in draft-13 >>2a. Defer them to a future document (standards-track) >>2b. Defer them to a future document (experimental) >>3. Drop them entirely >> >> >>Earlier discussions were inconclusive. I gather our Chair prefers #2 (a or >>b), but he has made no definitive pronouncement. >> >> > >I think all that the discussion established was that it was as much effort to >remove them (from USEPRO) as to add them (to USEFOR). It is still not clear >(to me) what the objection to keeping them is, and I see no merit at all in >#2b (since these headers are in moderately common use, and the "experiment" >has, in effect, been done). > >So this issue is still OPEN. > This issue is closed now: the headers will not appear in the USEFOR document. The choice between 2a/2b/3 is up to the WG. > > >4. Terminology for followups. > > > >>1. A followup is a response, and MUST have a References header. A part of >> a multi-part FAQ (or anything similar) is not a followup, but it MAY >> nevertheless have a References header. >> >>2. A followup is a response, or a part of a multi-part FAQ (or anything >> similar). A followup MUST have a References header, and anything else >> MUST NOT have one. >> >>It has been established that there is no technical difference between >>these formulations. It is just a matter of wording, so a simple majority >>for one of the other should settle the matter. >> >>There are alternative definitions in USEPRO, but no corresponding wordings >>for the References header in USEFOR yet, so maybe we should wait until >>there are. >> >> > >This one is still OPEN. There are two alternative texts in USEPRO, but the >matching alternative texts for USEFOR are not in place yet (I hope Ken is >working on them). So I am happy to let this one be for now. There is no >technical issue involved - just a question of how to define things. > I don't believe that anything in the USEFOR should be changed, so this issue concerns the USEPRO document at best. > > >5. Review Injection-Info syntax (this might be related to Complaints-To) > >I invited proposals from anyone who wanted to pursue this. I received none, so >I think this one is CLOSED. > The updated USEFOR draft now includes description of different parameters. If people want an alternative syntax, please speak up now! > >We all agree that RFC 2231 is ugly, but most of it is quite unnecessary in >Netnews. I would be happy for this to be pointed out in USEFOR with suitably >discouraging wording. > >6. Remove filename parameter from the Archive header. > >I think we concluded that the filename-parameter (and perhaps other >parameters) might well be useful in the future, but there was no need to >define them now. Therefore, we should just keep provision for MIME-style >parameters in this header (so software would be required to ignore such >parameters for now), but leave the definition of any actual parameters for >future extensions. > In the latest USEFOR draft the filename parameter was replaced by a generic parameters. > > >7. FWS issue in headers. > >Frank was very keen to introduce *FWS rather than *CFWS or *FWS in various >headers to cope with the rule that folding should not result in empty lines, >or even in lines with empty content. It was established, however, that the >present verbiage covering this issue would still be needed because it was not >possible to solve all such cases syntactically. I argued that there was no >point in changing only those cases where it would work, thereby introducing >differences from RFC 2822. Note that this issue involves no technical change - >just the method of description. > >Frank received no other support, and I propose to do nothing. If Ken wants to >make these changes to USEFOR, then so be it. I regard this one as CLOSED. > I tend to agree. > > >8. Define a Message-ID compatible with NNTP, get rid of NO-WS-CTL. > >We agreed to get rid of NO-WS-CTL (it would have been incompatible with >the new NNTP draft), but our Chair rules that further departures from RFC >2822 were not to be allowed. So I think this is CLOSED. > > > > NO-WS-CTL have been removed. Can people check that the new syntax is Ok? I suspect that some minor issues raised by Frank are yet to be addressed. > So could people who disagree with the ones I have marked CLOSED please >speak up, and otherwise will our Chair please confirm that they are >CLOSED. > >And please may we have discussion of the ones still OPEN, especially the >Path header one. > > > Alexey From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Apr 8 02:16:27 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02250 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 02:16:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j386FFAu004709 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 23:15:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j386FF1P004708 for ietf-usefor-skb; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 23:15:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j386FDj7004686 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 23:15:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DJmjT-0000VH-4G for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:12:43 +0200 Received: from 212.82.251.127 ([212.82.251.127]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:12:43 +0200 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.127 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:12:43 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: =?UTF-8*de-DE-1996?B?RG9uYXVkYW1wZnNjaGlmZmZhaHJ0c2thcGl0w6Ruc23DvHR6ZQ==?= Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:10:53 +0200 Organization: Lines: 23 Message-ID: <4256206D.6512@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4255153E.3080500@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.127 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> Frank received no other support, and I propose to do >> nothing. If Ken wants to make these changes to USEFOR, then >> so be it. I regard this one as CLOSED. > I tend to agree. One last attempt, the subject of this article is a German fun word: Donaudampfschifffahrtskapit=E4nsm=FCtze. The 3 "fff" are a case of de-DE-1996, I use RfC 2231 and one B64 UTF-8 word. It is too long for RfC2047, therefore it's folded with a FWS. This violates a MUST in Usefor-03, but it's a valid RfC 2822 mail header field. So now what, shoot my UA (in theory, in practice I edited the subject manually) ? Let some "injection agent" fix it ? Or reject it ? What about mail2news gateways ? = Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Apr 8 22:13:39 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05467 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 22:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j392CW9M017594 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 19:12:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j392CWUt017592 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 19:12:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.199]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j392CVxE017583 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 19:12:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-66-5.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.66.5 with poptime) by smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2005 02:12:25 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j392CCE25526 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 03:12:12 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20637 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: =?UTF-8*de-DE-?B?RG9uYXVkYW1wZnNjaGlmZmZhaHJ0c2thcGl0w6Ruc23DvHR6ZQ==?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4255153E.3080500@isode.com> <4256206D.6512@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 20:11:05 GMT Lines: 55 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In <4256206D.6512@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Alexey Melnikov wrote: >>> Frank received no other support, and I propose to do >>> nothing. If Ken wants to make these changes to USEFOR, then >>> so be it. I regard this one as CLOSED. >> I tend to agree. >One last attempt, the subject of this article is a German fun >word: Donaudampfschifffahrtskapitänsmütze. The 3 "fff" are a >case of de-DE-1996, I use RfC 2231 and one B64 UTF-8 word. >It is too long for RfC2047, therefore it's folded with a FWS. >This violates a MUST in Usefor-03, but it's a valid RfC 2822 >mail header field. It is indeed, but since it is in breach of RFC 2047, a conforming reading agent SHOULD render it exactly as received ('=?...?=' and all). However, some kind agents _might_ try to decode it for you. The proper way to create that header is as: Subject: =?UTF-8*de-DE-?B?RG9uYXVkYW1wZnNjaGlmZmZh?= =?UTF-8*de-DE-?B?aHJ0c2thcGl0w6Ruc23DvHR6ZQ==?= That works because, if you have two encoded words with nothing but FWS between them, then the decoder is required to ignore the FWS. And you have to be careful where you make the split, because each encoded-word must encode an integral number of octets (so after a multiple of 4 for base64, and watch out for '=xy' in Q-P). And on top of that you must not split any multi-octet character between the encoded words (which could be tricky in UTF-8, where the number of octets per character is variable). But any decent MUA ought to be able to do it. I tried it in Opera, and it produced: Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Donaudampfschifffahrtskapit?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A4nsm=C3=BCtze?= OK, it used Q-P rather than Base 64, but it was quite happy to display the original word without any spaces in the middle when read back. BTW, your message achieved a Spammassassin score of 3 :-( . -- 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@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Apr 8 22:14:01 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05736 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 22:14:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j392CYMg017602 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 19:12:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j392CY3O017601 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 19:12:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.199]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j392CXwS017584 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 19:12:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-66-5.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.66.5 with poptime) by smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2005 02:12:26 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j392CDr25532 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 03:12:13 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20638 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Issues outstanding Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4255153E.3080500@isode.com> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 21:32:34 GMT Lines: 188 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <4255153E.3080500@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >Ken has just published a new revision of USEFOR (03). Some comments on >the changes and how they relate to the list of issues below: There is still an awful lot of stuff that is meant to be covered in USEFOR, but still isn't. But that is for another thread. >Charles Lindsey wrote: >>>We are coming to the point where there is little more that can be done on >>>the documents we are supposed to be producing without deciding how various >>>outstanding issues are to be resolved. >> >>1. Complaints-To >> >>I think the conclusion we reached on this was to have a >>'mail-complaints-to' parameter in the Injection-Info header with an >> for its parameter. And we decided not to have any provision >>for URLs at this time, though a url-complaints-to parameter could be added >>as a future extension if there was a demand for it. >> >>If that is agreed, then this issue is CLOSED, >> >This change is done as well as description of different parameters. Yes, but not quite as agreed, because the token he has given for the parameter is 'complaints-to', rather than 'mail-complaints-to' as we agreed. That will not satisfy the people who wanted to leave room for a 'url-complaints-to' parameter as a future extension. >>except for deciding whether >>multiple
s meant you were supposed to reply to ALL of them, or to >>ANY ONE of them. Input on this is still needed. >> >This minor issue is still open. As currently written, the of that parameter is an , which by default means "send to them all" (cf. the Reply-To header). >My personal opinion is that if there are multiple email addresses they >all should be treated as equal and mailing to ANY of them should suffice. That could be achieved by adding some wording to say so. I am easy either way, so we need to hear more opinions. >>2. Path header delimiters >> >> >This is still open. >[...] Shame! I though we had more-or less agreed on that one. OK, I shall start another thread to discuss that. >>3. Mail-Copies-To and Posted-And Mailed >> >>>1. Include them as in draft-13 >>>2a. Defer them to a future document (standards-track) >>>2b. Defer them to a future document (experimental) >>>3. Drop them entirely >> >This issue is closed now: the headers will not appear in the USEFOR >document. The choice between 2a/2b/3 is up to the WG. Actually, I have now come to the conclusion that this problem is far worse with mailing lists than it is on Usenet, so it might be better to fix it there, maybe based on Mail-Followups-To with some extra features to incorporate News. Indeed, there was some discussion on the ietf-822 list about Mail-Followups-To as a possible solution, with many in favour but two diehards implacably opposed (for completely opposite reasons). Ours is not the only list that suffers from long discussions with no decision at the end :-( . (Oddly, I noticed that John Stanley was in favour of Posted-And-Mailed - he is quite right, but if Mail- Copies-To has to wait, then Posted-And-Mailed must wait too.) I shall now remove all mention of both these headers from USEPRO. >>4. Terminology for followups. >> >>This one is still OPEN. There are two alternative texts in USEPRO, but the >>matching alternative texts for USEFOR are not in place yet (I hope Ken is >>working on them). So I am happy to let this one be for now. There is no >>technical issue involved - just a question of how to define things. >> >I don't believe that anything in the USEFOR should be changed, so this >issue concerns the USEPRO document at best. Could you please explain your reasoning here? ISTM that any header described in USEFOR needs the following information, as appropriate: 1. A brief statement of what the header is supposed to achieve. 2. Its syntax. 3. Its semantics (i.e. what information is conveyed by its various syntactic parts). 4. Any restrictions or requirements on when it is to be used (e.g. it is "mandatory", or it MUST/SHOULD [NOT] be present if such and such other circumstances pertain). Following #4, there has always been a statement like the following associated with this header: A followup MUST have a References-header, and an article that is not a followup MUST NOT have a References-header. It is particularly important to say that here, because it is a change from RFC 2822, where the word used is only SHOULD. Now the precise wording of that varies according to exactly how the term "followup" is defined (and that is what this issue is all about). But both sides to this argument are agreed that that "MUST" needs to be said, and this is (AFAICS) the only place where it could be said. Yes, USEPRO describes in detail how to construct this header in the particular case of responses/replies to earlier articles, but there are other applications for it also, for example multipart FAQs and message/partial (and again it is common ground that these are legitimate applications). >>5. Review Injection-Info syntax (this might be related to Complaints-To) >> >The updated USEFOR draft now includes description of different parameters. >If people want an alternative syntax, please speak up now! Well nobody has spoken on this for a long time. I think the important thing is that Russ declared that he could live with this syntax, and I think his opinion is important. But I think we also need some deprecatory remarks to discourage the wilder (and unnecessary) extremes of RFC 2231 (and please can we use that lovely word "gibbous" in them :-) ). It is nice to see all the other Injection-Info parameters fully described. I have a few niggles about the precise details, and there are issues regarding the way they have been introduced syntactically, but that too is for another thread. >>6. Remove filename parameter from the Archive header. >> >In the latest USEFOR draft the filename parameter was replaced by a >generic parameters. Fine! >>7. FWS issue in headers. >> >>Frank was very keen to introduce *FWS rather than *CFWS or *FWS in various >>headers to cope with the rule that folding should not result in empty lines, >>or even in lines with empty content. It was established, however, that the >>present verbiage covering this issue would still be needed because it was not >>possible to solve all such cases syntactically. I argued that there was no >>point in changing only those cases where it would work, thereby introducing >>differences from RFC 2822. Note that this issue involves no technical change - >>just the method of description. >> >>Frank received no other support, and I propose to do nothing. If Ken wants to >>make these changes to USEFOR, then so be it. I regard this one as CLOSED. >> >I tend to agree. >>8. Define a Message-ID compatible with NNTP, get rid of NO-WS-CTL. >> >>We agreed to get rid of NO-WS-CTL (it would have been incompatible with >>the new NNTP draft), but our Chair rules that further departures from RFC >>2822 were not to be allowed. So I think this is CLOSED. >NO-WS-CTL have been removed. Can people check that the new syntax is Ok? >I suspect that some minor issues raised by Frank are yet to be addressed. Yes, there is a placeholder "[[Adjacent dots should not be allowed]]" for Frank's problem, but we still need some syntax to plug in there. We also need some wording drawing attention to this extra departure from RFC 2822, and referring to [NNTP] which necessitated it. -- 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@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Apr 9 00:26:01 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09317 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 00:26:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j394Oqd8030346 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 21:24:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j394Oq04030345 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 21:24:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j394OnCL030339 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 21:24:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DK7Tz-0002KG-W0 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2005 06:22:08 +0200 Received: from du-001-228.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.228]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 09 Apr 2005 06:22:07 +0200 Received: from nobody by du-001-228.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 09 Apr 2005 06:22:07 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: =?UTF-8*de-DE-1996?B?RG9uYXVkYW1wZnNjaGlmZmZhaHJ0c2thcGl0w6Ruc23DvHR6ZQ==?= Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 06:14:38 +0200 Organization: Lines: 25 Message-ID: <425756AE.2232@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4255153E.3080500@isode.com> <4256206D.6512@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-228.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: >> it's a valid RfC 2822 mail header field. > It is indeed, but since it is in breach of RFC 2047 It shouldn't, I've sent it in two lines, 2nd line 76 characters: Subject: =?UTF-8*de-DE-1996?B?RG9uYXVkYW1wZnNjaGlmZmZhaHJ0c2thcGl0w6Ruc23DvHR6ZQ==?= ....5...10....5...20....5...30....5...40....5...50....5...60....5...70....5. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.usenet.format:28154:raw says that "something" between me and GmaNe "fixed" this, but generally my UA is innocent if it comes to attempts of being smart. > Subject: =?UTF-8*de-DE-?B?RG9uYXVkYW1wZnNjaGlmZmZh?= > =?UTF-8*de-DE-?B?aHJ0c2thcGl0w6Ruc23DvHR6ZQ==?= Sure, you and me know this, but I'm talking about existing MUAs, mail2news gateways, injection agents, servers, and newsreaders. > BTW, your message achieved a Spammassassin score of 3 :-( . 1st UTF-8, 2nd B64, what was the 3rd ? Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Apr 9 00:57:39 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA15190 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 00:57:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j394uqGc031776 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 21:56:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j394uqKx031775 for ietf-usefor-skb; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 21:56:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j394upSL031769 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 21:56:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DK7yz-0003nh-QC for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2005 06:54:09 +0200 Received: from du-001-228.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.228]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 09 Apr 2005 06:54:09 +0200 Received: from nobody by du-001-228.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 09 Apr 2005 06:54:09 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: =?UTF-8*de-DE-1996?B?RG9uYXVkYW1wZnNjaGlmZmZhaHJ0c2thcGl0w6Ruc23DvHR6ZQ==?= Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 06:55:19 +0200 Organization: Lines: 9 Message-ID: <42576037.190F@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4255153E.3080500@isode.com> <4256206D.6512@xyzzy.claranet.de> <425756AE.2232@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-228.access.de.clara.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've just tested it with two news servers, and both rejected a "Subject:" SP CRLF SP "stuff" CRLF So "fixing" the FWS issue by removing the separate MUST about non-empty header body lines Usefor-03 would be a very bad idea. Maybe I should a post an I-D "Subject: Re: considered effective at least" mentioning this case. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Apr 9 16:11:56 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04424 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 16:11:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j39KAE6o022796 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:10:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j39KAEbO022795 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:10:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j39KADWn022779 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:10:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-19.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.19 with poptime) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2005 20:10:06 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j39K9o229793 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 21:09:50 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20642 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Differences between RFC 2822 and Usefor Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 20:00:42 GMT Lines: 318 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: I published a list of differences from RFC 2822 as they stood in the old draft-13 last July (and it has been on our web site ever since). Most of those differences were agreed years ago when this WG was first formed and have been in the drafts ever since. I don't recall any disagreement with the list when I published it. There have been a few things changed since then (like the MIME-style parameters have gone), and also things are described somewhat differently in USEFOR, so I have updated it. The new texts follows (and it will shortly be put on the website), and after that there are the diffs from the previous one. Note that many of these agreed changes have not made it into the new USEFOR yet, and so I have marked the missing ones with "**". Differences between RFC 2822 and Usefor. ---------------------------------------- 08 April 2005 NOTE: Some items have been removed from the previous version, hence some discontinuities in the listing below. A '**' before an item indicates that the restriction in question has not yet been incorporated into the USEFOR document. 1. Differences enforced syntactically. -------------------------------------- 1.1 There is a REQUIRED SP (not even WSP) after the ':' in each header (even if the header has no content). 1.2 An MUST have at least one character. Thus the Subject (for example) of an article cannot be empty. 1.3**In the References-header, there is an obligatory CFWS (currently restricted to FWS by 2.1.1 below) in between each msg-id. NOTE: all the above were in RFC 1036, and the first is also required by NNTP. 1.5**Body lines are restricted to 998 characters plus CRLF (as in RFC 2822). However, all agents SHOULD, and relaying agents MUST, process lines of arbitrary length. 1.8 All the "obsolete" syntax in RFC 2822 is NOT REQUIRED (though it MAY be recognized). There are two small exceptions, listed below. 1.8.1 In the Date-header, the obsolete "UT" and "GMT" forms of zone MUST be recognized (because of their current widespread use), but MUST NOT be generated. 1.8.2**The (mis-named) "obsolete" syntax for phrase from RFC 2822, which allows for 'John D. Smith' to remain unquoted, is retained (but renamed as extended-phrase). NOTE: NNTP imposes similar restrictions. 1.11 Message-ID 1.11.1 No CFWS allowed (only FWS, which in practice means only non-folded WSP). 1.11.2 No quoted-pairs in msg-id, except for '\\' and '\"' in id-left '\[', '\]' and '\\' in id-right 1.11.3 No quoted-strings in id-left unless they contain one of the "specials". 1.11.4 No '>' anywhere within a msg-id, even within a quoted-string (to conform with RFC 1036). 1.11.5 All these restrictions on msg-id apply also to the References- and Supersedes-headers. 1.11.6 No control characters in msg-id. 2. Differences enforced by verbiage. ------------------------------------ 2.1 The following MUST be accepted, but SHOULD NOT be generated (yet): 2.1.1**Comments, except after a mailbox (where there is a now-deprecated convention for indicating the mailbox owner), or at the end of a date-time (which conventionally indicates the timezone). They are, however, freely allowed in headers that are newly defined in Usefor. 2.1.2**Extended-phrases (see 1.8.2 above). 2.2 The content of the first line of a header MUST NOT consist of WSP only (though such SHOULD be accepted). Observe that continuation lines of headers also MUST NOT consist of WSP only, as in RFC 2822. 2.3 Headers with empty content are deprecated (but if present that SP after the ':" is still required). 2.4 All agents MUST support header lines up to 998 octets, but there is no RECOMENDED limit of 78 characters as in RFC 2822. There is mention of a purely advisory limit of 79 (with a reference to USEAGE). 2.5 Relaying agents MUST NOT refold headers in transit. 2.6 There must not be more than one header with a given header-name, except where explicitly sanctioned by the appropriate standard. In particular, there MUST NOT be more than one Keywords-header. 2.7 The length of a msg-id MUST NOT exceed 250 octets. 2.8**The body of an article SHOULD NOT be empty. 2.9 (was 1.6) RFC 2047 and RFC 2231 are fully integrated into the Netnews. 2.10 (was 1.7) All the Content-* MIME headers are considered to be incorporated into Netnews and MUST be accepted in articles at, least to the extent required by RFC 2049. 2.11 A References header MUST be provided for followups (as opposed to SHOULD be provided for replies in RFC 2822). 3. Rules specific to Netnews headers. ------------------------------------- 3.2 Comments (but not FWS) are forbidden in the Newsgroups-, Distribution- Path- and Followup-To-headers (also see 1.11.1 above for Message-ID). 3.3**WSP and folding in Newsgroup- and Followup-To-headers MUST be accepted, but SHOULD NOT be generated (yet). NOTE: The effect of all these differences still preserves the property that the articles that Usefor permits to be generated form a proper subset of the articles that are required to be acceptable to RFC 2822. *** rfc2822-diffs.old Thu Jul 1 23:24:57 2004 --- rfc2822-diffs.txt Fri Apr 8 22:05:05 2005 *************** *** 3,6 **** ! 01 July 2004 1. Differences enforced syntactically. --- 3,12 ---- ! 08 April 2005 + NOTE: Some items have been removed from the previous version, hence some + discontinuities in the listing below. + + A '**' before an item indicates that the restriction in question has not yet + been incorporated into the USEFOR document. + 1. Differences enforced syntactically. *************** *** 11,13 **** ! 1.2 An 'unstructured' MUST have at least one character. Thus the Subject (for example) of an article cannot be empty. --- 17,19 ---- ! 1.2 An MUST have at least one character. Thus the Subject (for example) of an article cannot be empty. *************** *** 14,16 **** ! 1.3 In the References-header, there is an obligatory CFWS (currently restricted to FWS by 2.1.1 below) in between each msg-id. --- 20,22 ---- ! 1.3**In the References-header, there is an obligatory CFWS (currently restricted to FWS by 2.1.1 below) in between each msg-id. *************** *** 20,26 **** ! 1.4 The allowed characters in a header-name are restricted to ALPHA, ! DIGIT and embedded '-'. However, agents SHOULD accept all printables ! except SP and ':'. ! ! 1.5 Body lines are restricted to 998 characters plus CRLF (as in RFC 2822). However, all agents SHOULD, and relaying agents MUST, process --- 26,28 ---- ! 1.5**Body lines are restricted to 998 characters plus CRLF (as in RFC 2822). However, all agents SHOULD, and relaying agents MUST, process *************** *** 28,38 **** - 1.6 RFC 2047 and RFC 2231 are fully integrated into the syntax. Thus - encoded-words are explicitly included within 'unstructured', - 'ccontent' and 'phrase'. Moreover, it is the RFC 2231 version of - encoded-word that is used. - - 1.7 All the Content-* MIME headers are considered to be incorporated into - the syntax (i.e. they are to be accepted in articles, though not all - of them are required to have their semantic intentions implemented). - 1.8 All the "obsolete" syntax in RFC 2822 is NOT REQUIRED (though it MAY --- 30,31 ---- *************** *** 44,46 **** ! 1.8.2 The (mis-named) "obsolete" syntax for phrase from RFC 2822, which allows for 'John D. Smith' to remain unquoted, is retained (but --- 37,39 ---- ! 1.8.2**The (mis-named) "obsolete" syntax for phrase from RFC 2822, which allows for 'John D. Smith' to remain unquoted, is retained (but *************** *** 68,70 **** --- 61,65 ---- + 1.11.6 No control characters in msg-id. + 2. Differences enforced by verbiage. *************** *** 74,83 **** ! 2.1.1 Comments, except after a mailbox (where there is a now-deprecated convention for indicating the mailbox owner), or at the end of a ! date-time (which conventionally indicates the timezone). ! BUG: they ought to be freely allowed in headers that are newly ! defined in Usefor (and indeed the text positively encourages them ! in some of those places). ! 2.1.2 Extended-phrases (see 1.8.2 above). --- 69,76 ---- ! 2.1.1**Comments, except after a mailbox (where there is a now-deprecated convention for indicating the mailbox owner), or at the end of a ! date-time (which conventionally indicates the timezone). They are, ! however, freely allowed in headers that are newly defined in Usefor. ! 2.1.2**Extended-phrases (see 1.8.2 above). *************** *** 88,91 **** 2.3 Headers with empty content are deprecated (but if present that SP ! after the ':" is still required). Injecting agents SHOULD delete such ! headers, but other agents MUST propagate them. --- 81,83 ---- 2.3 Headers with empty content are deprecated (but if present that SP ! after the ':" is still required). *************** *** 103,107 **** ! 2.8 The body of an article SHOULD NOT be empty. 3. Rules specific to Netnews headers. --- 95,107 ---- ! 2.8**The body of an article SHOULD NOT be empty. + 2.9 (was 1.6) RFC 2047 and RFC 2231 are fully integrated into the Netnews. + 2.10 (was 1.7) All the Content-* MIME headers are considered to be + incorporated into Netnews and MUST be accepted in articles at, least + to the extent required by RFC 2049. + + 2.11 A References header MUST be provided for followups (as opposed to SHOULD + be provided for replies in RFC 2822). + 3. Rules specific to Netnews headers. *************** *** 109,118 **** - 3.1 All structured headers have MIME-style extension-parameters, with - x-attributes or to be defined in future standards. Some have explicit - parameters defined in this standard. However, this does not apply to - headers which are taken from RFC 2822 or other mail standards, nor to - the Mail-Copies-To, Complaints-to and Supersedes-header defined in - this standard. Nevertheless, such parameters SHOULD be recognized - (and ignored) in all headers. - 3.2 Comments (but not FWS) are forbidden in the Newsgroups-, --- 109,110 ---- *************** *** 121,128 **** ! 3.3 The following MUST be accepted, but SHOULD NOT be generated (yet): - 3.3.1 MIME-style parameters in headers defined prior to this standard. - - 3.3.2 WSP and folding in Newsgroup- and Followup-To-headers. - NOTE: The effect of all these differences still preserves the property --- 113,117 ---- ! 3.3**WSP and folding in Newsgroup- and Followup-To-headers MUST be ! accepted, but SHOULD NOT be generated (yet). NOTE: The effect of all these differences still preserves the property -- 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@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Apr 9 16:11:57 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04441 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 16:11:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j39KACH9022787 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:10:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j39KACFG022786 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:10:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j39KABRT022778 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:10:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-73-19.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.73.19 with poptime) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2005 20:10:05 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j39K9na29787 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 21:09:49 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20641 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Babble from Frank Ellermann Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4255153E.3080500@isode.com> <4256206D.6512@xyzzy.claranet.de> <425756AE.2232@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 19:33:52 GMT Lines: 48 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <425756AE.2232@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >>> it's a valid RfC 2822 mail header field. >> It is indeed, but since it is in breach of RFC 2047 >It shouldn't, I've sent it in two lines, 2nd line 76 characters: >Subject: > =?UTF-8*de-DE-1996?B?RG9uYXVkYW1wZnNjaGlmZmZhaHJ0c2thcGl0w6Ruc23DvHR6ZQ==?= >....5...10....5...20....5...30....5...40....5...50....5...60....5...70....5. Ah! It was all on one line when I received it, so I didn't understand what your problem was. >http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.usenet.format:28154:raw >says that "something" between me and GmaNe "fixed" this, but >generally my UA is innocent if it comes to attempts of being >smart. >> Subject: =?UTF-8*de-DE-?B?RG9uYXVkYW1wZnNjaGlmZmZh?= >> =?UTF-8*de-DE-?B?aHJ0c2thcGl0w6Ruc23DvHR6ZQ==?= >Sure, you and me know this, but I'm talking about existing MUAs, >mail2news gateways, injection agents, servers, and newsreaders. Well if the sending agent cannot figure how to do it that way, then it will just have to leave it on one long line. Then it becomes the reading agent's problem :-) . >> BTW, your message achieved a Spammassassin score of 3 :-( . >1st UTF-8, 2nd B64, what was the 3rd ? SpamAssassin hits were FORGED_RCVD_HELO RCVD_BY_IP RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO SUBJECT_EXCESS_BASE64 SUBJECT_NOVOWEL -- 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@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Apr 9 22:13:39 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23947 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 22:13:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3A2CTAx040128 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 19:12:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3A2CTGt040127 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 19:12:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.204]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j3A2CR8F040115 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 19:12:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-72-58.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.72.58 with poptime) by smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Apr 2005 02:12:21 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j3A2CA802775 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 03:12:10 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20643 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Path header delimiters Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 21:06:31 GMT Lines: 138 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Our Chair has ruled that this matter it still open, so here is a summary of where I think we are at. Many years ago, when this WG was first formed, we were concerned that malefactors regularly preloaded the Path header with all sorts of sites (usually culled for some other article), in an attempt to disguise the point at which it had been injected. We therefore proposed to modify the Path header so that relaying agents would be able to make the following assertions when they add a new path-identity to the Path-header: #1 I am the injecting site. #2 I have checked the identity of the previous site, and I believe the path-identity inserted by that site to be correct. #3 I have checked the identity of the previous site, and I do not believe the path-identity claimed by that site; here is what I believe to be the true identity of that site. #4 I have made no checks on the identity of the previous site. The Path header is to News as the sequence of Received headers is to Email, and Received headers currently convey much the same information, and very useful they are when trying to trace the origin of some spam or other malefaction. I think we are still agreed that such a feature in the Path header is desirable - the point at issue is how to convey this information in a backwards compatible manner. The original suggestion was to introduce the delimiters '%', '/', and '?' in addition to the usual '!', it being apparently the case that RFC 1036 already allowed all these characters, and many more, to be used as delimiters, and it appeared that existing implementations did indeed accept them. However, RFC 1036 is somewhat vague on exactly what the allowed set of characters was. A few months ago, Bruce Lilly pointed out that maybe some implementations were not so accomodating, and pointed to the implementation of BNews (written by the author of RFC 1036) which actually accepted a rather small set. Following from that, various alternative schemes were proposed, as follows. In the following running example injector.com always uses #1 new-site.com always uses #2 or #3 good-site.com always uses #2 or #3 old-site always uses #4 dodgy.com was a bogus identity actually inserted by mallet.com A. Current draft: ----------------- Uses '%' for #1, '/' for #2, '?' for #3 amd '!' for #4 Path: good-site.com/mallet.com?dodgy.com!old-site.com! new-site.com/injector.com%not-for-mail B. Henry's proposal : ------------------------------------------------------------------ Uses '@' for #1, ',' for #2, ' ' for #3 amd '!' for #4, since it is clear from RFC 1036 that all of those are intended to be usable as delimiters. Path: good-site.com,mallet.com dodgy.com!old-site.com! new-site.com,injector.com@not-for-mail Observe that the ' ' delimiter turns up rather conveniently as a separator between the correct and bogus identities of mallet.com. One would need to discuss whether FWS as well as SP should delimit this case. C. The Diablo scheme -------------------- I still have not been able to find documentation on this, but from observed instances it appears to work as follows: Path: good-site.com!mallet.com.MISMATCH!dodgy.com!old-site.com! new-site.com!injector.com.POSTED!not-for-mail I see 2 problems with this one: 1: Any site which peers with injector.com (e.g. new-site.com) would normally scan the received Path for occurrences of "injector.com", and would send the article back to injector.com if it was not found (which, of course, it isn't here because it recorded itself as "injector.com.POSTED"). 2: It provides no distinction betwen cases #2 and #4, which rather defeats the object of the whole exercise. D. Another possible scheme -------------------------- If you want to avoid all delimiters other than '!', and to overcome the problems with the Diablo scheme, then here is one which relies on special keywords "M", "MISMATCH" and "POSTED" in places where the current syntax would expect a path-identity. Path: good-site.com!M!mallet.com!MISMATCH!dodgy.com!old-site.com! new-site.com!M!injector.com!POSTED!not-for-mail It makes the Path a little longer, but not unacceptably so, and assumes that those keywords will never represent real sites. E. A variant on scheme D ------------------------ Instead of the keyword 'M' to indicate case #2, just place two '#' delimiters in succession, giving: Path: good-site.com!!mallet.com!MISMATCH!dodgy.com!old-site.com! new-site.com!!injector.com!POSTED!not-for-mail This avoids any delimiter other than '!', but it assumes that two delimiters in succession will not cause any trouble. But it is clear that RFC 1036 permits such usage, because it uses two delimiters in succession in some of its own examples. My own view is that we should adopt scheme E. It is much easier to recognize what is meant, rather than having to remember exactly what '%', '/', and '?' mean. In the discussion since I posted that last list of outstanding issues, Frank Ellerman agreed that we should go with this scheme (having carefully examined those examples in RFC 1036), and nobody suggested anything different. So that scheme is the front runner at the moment. I could easily propose modifications to the existing texts to incorporate that scheme, but I don't want to embark on that unless we are agreed it is the way to go. So does anyone else want to comment, and can I assume that, if there are no objections, we go with scheme E? -- 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@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Apr 10 11:41:04 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27673 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 11:41:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3AFe3J2023250 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:40:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3AFe3ws023249 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:40:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3AFe0Cj023235 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:40:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DKeUi-0000pl-70 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:37:04 +0200 Received: from 212.82.251.245 ([212.82.251.245]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:37:04 +0200 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.245 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:37:04 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Broken Mesage-ID syntax (was: Issues outstanding) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:38:33 +0200 Organization: Lines: 53 Message-ID: <42594879.3B92@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4255153E.3080500@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.245 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alexey Melnikov wrote: > NO-WS-CTL have been removed. Can people check that the new > syntax is Ok? It is not. The "pseudo-consensus" between Charles and me was to replace msg-id-core by msg-id everywhere, and to fix the dot-atom-text issue with leading / trailing dots plus dot-dot. Two (Charles + me) is a bad number, could somebody like you please volunteer as third for a proper "rough consensus" about the last open msg-id point, a better name for the "LHS @ RHS" productions ? I've interpreted an unrelated article from Bruce elsewhere as support for "unique @ domain" productions, but that's obviously dubious, > I suspect that some minor issues raised by Frank are yet to > be addressed. The msg-id and dot stuff isn't minor, the former is important, the latter is erroneous. Here's the latest ABNF for a msg-id: | msg-id = "<" unique "@" mdomain ">" | unique = dot-atom-text / ( DQUOTE unique-quote DQUOTE ) | unique-quote = ( "." [unique-part] ) / | ( [unique-part] "." ) / | ( [unique-part] unique-literal [unique-part] ) | unique-part = 1*( atext / "." / unique-literal ) | unique-literal = "(" / ")" / "," / ; all specials, minus ">", | "[" / "]" / "@" / ; minus DQUOTE, minus "\", | ":" / ";" / "<" / ; minus single ".", plus: | ".." / "\\" / ( "\" DQUOTE ) | mdomain = dot-atom-text / ("[" address-literal "]") | address-literal = 1*( %d33-61 / ; printable ASCII minus | %d63-90 / ; ">", "[", "\", "]" | %d94-126 / ; plus "\[", "\\, "\]" | "\[" / "\\" / "\]" ) Some weeks later the "no-pseudo-consensus" arrived at this: msg-id = "<" id-local "@" id-domain ">" msg-id = "<" msg-local "@" msg-domain ">" msg-id = "<" unique "@" mdomain ">" There it ended with another "pseudo-consensus" to wait for the next draft and a ruling from the chair (= you). The latter was of course a joke, but maybe you can toss a coin - in that case don't forget Charles' msg-id = "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Apr 10 22:13:57 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11772 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:13:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3B2CbYZ068802 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:12:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3B2CbXr068801 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:12:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.199]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j3B2Caes068769 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:12:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-75-36.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.75.36 with poptime) by smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Apr 2005 02:12:28 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j3B2CB209324 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:12:11 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20647 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:21:14 GMT Lines: 370 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In "Dr John Stockton" writes: >I've been reading >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01.txt, >March 2005. >I don't think I'm qualified to address the mailing list of the Usenet >Format Working Group; If this group were confined to "qualified" people, there would be no group :-). I have copied your message to the group, and am CCing this reply to you, but you will need to subscribe if you want to see any further responses. >"1.2. Objectives >... > NOTE: The extreme irritation caused to other readers by such > violations is not to be underestimated; ..." >And by false accusations of such violations! Yes, but don`t let's over-egg the pudding :-) . >"2.2. Textual Notations >... > NOTE: While such explanatory notes may seem superfluous in > principle, they often help the less-than-omniscient reader > understand the true intent of the specification in cases where > the wording is not entirely clear." >The wording should always be entirely clear, in the opinion of the >author! But the meaning may well not be entirely obvious to such a >reader. Yes. It's a nice quote by Henry Spencer from Son-of-1036 - too good not to use it. >"3.1. The Well-Behaved Posting Agent > The implementor of a posting agent SHOULD make it possible for a > suitably perseverent poster to generate any article, ..." >I don't believe that "perseverent" is a real word, except maybe in the >full OED; "perseverant" is in Chambers' Dictionary; OK, I will follow Chambers. >Last sentence of 3.1 contains "imppose". Fixed. >"3.1.1. Construction of Headers >... > Posting agents SHOULD permit the poster to include headers of > arbitrary length (and MUST permit at least 79 characters)." >You must mean "header lines" or "characters per line" ? No, I meant headers. The next sentence tells them to fold, preferably before 79, but certainly before 998. >... > "NOTE: ... standard 80-column screen" >Since use of text-only screens is now rare, how about something more >general, such as 80-column display, or viewport ? OK, I now say "display". >... > "... WSP ..." >Undefined in useage-01;... Defined in Usefor, by way of RFC 2822. >"3.1.1.1. Date >... > Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 11:13:00 -0500 (EST)" >To rub it in, you could observe (after checking) that EST is used in >Australia, probably (+1000). If someone can quote the Autralian rule authoritatively, and what "EST" stands for there, I might even be tempted to do just that. >I'd like to see full rigorous ISO 8601 dates being allowed, with day-of- >week as an optional but recommended comment - > Date : 2001-05-26 11:13:00 -0500 (EST) (Sat) It would be nice, but the email/news Date format is too entrenched to change it now. >In a time example, I'd choose an hour greater than 12, to expand the >experience of US readers. I think US readers are sufficiently familiar with the 24 hour clock as seen in Date headers. But I have changed it anyway. >"3.1.1.2. From" >Contains the word "ro". Oops! > "NOTE: ..." >ISTM that it might be better to bow to /force majeure/, and indicate, >maybe by reference to another document, what is and what is not >reasonable common practice. In particular, that the form used, after >removal of any ".invalid", MUST NOT be a possible address for someone >else, present or reasonable future. I am not sure. Sometimes people just add ".invalid" to their own genuine address. Not always spammer proof, but most spammers are stupid (Rule #3, or something) - I get massive amounts of spam directed at the Message-ID of my articles from 3 years back. The main purpose of that sentence was to encourage people NOT to munge their addresses WITHOUT adding .invalid as well. >"3.1.1.4. Subject >... > regognized" ! Oops! >"3.1.1.7. Organization >... > ... unless ... and unless ... " >ISTM that in English that's syntactically unreasonable! "unless ... or >... "? No, I meant 'and'. Applying De Morgan's rule, I said "DIScouage UNLESS acceptable AND UNLESS useful", which is the same as "ENcourage IF acceptable OR useful" (or would be if there wasn't a possible middle to exclude). >"3.1.2.1. Signatures > A "personal signature" is a short closing text automatically added" >ISTM that it is not necessarily automatic. OK. How about "added (usually automatically)"? >Since sigs are not normally quoted, you *might* agree with the >Implementors of Turnpike that sig lines can have as many as 79 >characters each. See my own signature below :-) . >"3.1.2.3. Content-Transfer-Encoding >... > moreover, Usenet articles are very likely to include trailing > whitespace in the form of a personal signature (3.1.2.1)." >3.1.2.1 is clear that the signature follows, and does not include, the >separator, which has a whitespace. OK. 'in the form of the "-- " which introduces a personal signature'. >"3.2.1.1. Subject >... > 1. Although the "Re" (which is an abbreviation for the Latin "In re", > meaning "in the matter of", and not an abbreviation of "Reference" > as is sometimes erroneously supposed) may be understood by English > speakers, and indeed by speakers of most European Languages, its > use in a newsgroup where articles were customarily written in > Arabic, or Hindi, or Chinese would be less than helpful." >That seems disrespectful to Eastern intelligence. If they can manage to >use News, they should be able to recognise the odd alien term (however >displayed) occurring always in a specific context. Apparently a lot or orientals are very unfamiliar with the Latin alphabet, but nevertheless are beginning to use mail and even news in their own languages. Granted they cannot avoid it 100% yet. There are domain-names (even if puny-coded), local-parts and newsgroup-names and much else that is still in ASCII, but those issues are being worked on (though slowly). >"3.2.1.1.1. Examples >... > Software can always recognize > that such changes have occurred from the References header." >I don't see that software can do that. ISTM that what you mean is >something different. No. Every followup MUST have a References header, so if software sees a References header it knows it is a followup (or something to be treated like a followup). So it can adjust its display accordingly (e.g. by threading); it does not need to see the "Re: ". From the software writer's POV, "Re: " is just some awkward characters that he has to detect and ignore in order to get his threading (well, some forms of threading) to work properly. >"3.2.1.3. Mail-Copies-To Has now been removed from all our drafts. >If it is permissible for a mail article to contain a newsgroups line >(I've seen it), then ISTM that a mail reading agent should give clear >warning. The intention is that the meaning of a Newsgroups header, if it is seen in an email message, is to indicate that it was also posted to that newsgroup (but replies to that email message should not include such a header unless they are posted to the newsgroup as well). >"3.2.1.4. References >... > carefully put their > by precursors.]" >"there" ! Oops! But it was not in text that was meant to go into the final version. >"3.2.2.1. Quoting and Attributions >... > SHOULD be so dintinguished ..." - distinguished. Genuine Oops! that one. >... > " The followup agent SHOULD also precede the quoted content by an > "attribution line" (however, ..." >I'd like to see a terminological amendment, to remove any taint of a >suggestion that the attribution is a single physical line. Point taken. s/"attribution line"/"attribution"/ and consequential changes elsewhere. >" The attribution MAY contain also a single (the one > from which the followup is being made), the precursor's message > identifier and/or the precursor's Date and Time." >'single' .. usually; but it can be convenient to change that manually to >indicate the degree of cross-posting. Sure. You edit anything manually as you want. But nobody wants to see more than one in the attribution, and I have never seen a user agent that put more than one (in fact they often don't put any). >'Date and Time' - IMHO, the Zone of the date & time is needed and should >be mentioned; and there should be consideration of whether this should >be a direct copy of the original Date:, whether it may be translated >into the responding poster's (or ISO) notation, whether it may be >adjusted to GMT or responder's zone. I do dislike being attributed as >having written on such as 3/21/05, or during AM/PM. I think normal practice is to use the same date-time format as in the Date header. Does anyone know of a system that changes the zone from whatever was actually in the Date header of the precursor? Basically, we are trying to document current best practice here rather than invent anything new. >" o The various fields may be separated by arbitrary text " > ^ brief OK. "arbitrary (but brief) text". Yes, we have all seen some horrors that people have inserted in there, and there is not much we can do to stop them. But no harm in giving a hint and hoping they take it :-( . >"3.3.2. Presentation of Articles >3.3.2.1. Threading > 4. Construct a tree in " ... >ISTM that it *might* be useful for a reading agent to display an >indication, for example, of the difference in tree-depth between that >article and the most previously read article in that thread, presumably >as a signed number, possibly background-coloured for sign. Of course, >all reading-agents should make thread-structure capable of being fully >seen; but it's not necessarily obvious when going from article to >article. Just a thought. I think this is an area where newsreader implementors should be encouraged to experiment. If you don't like what your newsreqder does, then you should go out and buy a better one. I think the purpose of that whole section was to point out various possibilities, each of which has disadvantages if used on its own, and to encourage experimentation with hybrids. There are some agents out there that seem to do a pretty good job, and others that don't. >"3.3.2.2. Killfiles > Moreover, articles > crossposted to many newsgroups SHOULD be considered to have been read > once they have been seen in any of those groups." >But "many" is not the right word, surely. Cross-posting can be to 2 >groups, and 2 < a few < many. s/many/several/ >"3.3.3. Interpretation of Bodies >... > Tab (US-ASCII 9) SHOULD be interpreted as sufficient horizontal white > space to reach the next of a set of fixed positions (customarily set > at every 8th character)." >"... after every 8th character)." OK. >"4.1. Construction of Headers > According to [USEPRO], an injecting agent MAY add other headers not > already provided by the poster, but SHOULD NOT alter, delete, or > reorder any existing header." >It might be useful to attempt to post a copy of that to certain >moderated newsgroups, sic, as comp.lang.asm.x86 :-( . And, perhaps, to >strengthen SHOULD NOT, if possible. No. Moderation comes before injection. Usepro makes it clear that moderators have some discretion to establish a "house style". In a well-managed hierarchy, there will be charters and moderation rules and means to enforce them. OTOH, some charters overdo it with pages and pages of rules governing the moderation process (and you and I know which group I am talking about :-( ). Our drafts need to stand well back from such issues. >"6.1.1. The 'newgroup' and 'mvgroup' Control Messages" >... >And 'rmgroup' ???? Actually no. That section was concerned with the detailed contents of newgroup etc messages, and rmgroup messages don't have any details - it's all or nothing :-) . >"9.2. Construction of Bodies > Posters SHOULD avoid using control characters and escape sequences > except for tab (US-ASCII 9), formfeed (US-ASCII 12) and, possibly, > backspace (US-ASCII 8), for reasons already explained in section > 3.3.3." >I thought that CR & LF were control characters too. Sure, but the requirements for CRLF are well documented in Usefor (via RFC 2822). >"12. Contact Address >Editor > Charles. H. Lindsey" > ^ One wonders what the dot is for. One does indeed! >P.S. I have discovered that the document bears a non-functional E-mail >address; sending the above to :- >" Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk" >gave >"A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its >recipients. Ah! Manchester have finally pulled the plug on my old email address. -- 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@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Apr 10 22:13:59 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11792 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:13:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3B2CaSE068794 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:12:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3B2CaIv068793 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:12:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.199]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j3B2CZ32068768 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:12:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-75-36.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.75.36 with poptime) by smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Apr 2005 02:12:24 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j3B2CCG09328 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:12:12 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20648 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Broken Mesage-ID syntax (was: Issues outstanding) Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4255153E.3080500@isode.com> <42594879.3B92@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:19:09 GMT Lines: 74 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <42594879.3B92@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> NO-WS-CTL have been removed. Can people check that the new >> syntax is Ok? >It is not. The "pseudo-consensus" between Charles and me was >to replace msg-id-core by msg-id everywhere, and to fix the >dot-atom-text issue with leading / trailing dots plus dot-dot. Yes, I asked Ken to make that msg-id change, but he hasn't done it yet. The dot-atom-text issue is noted, but not fixed yet. >Two (Charles + me) is a bad number, could somebody like you >please volunteer as third for a proper "rough consensus" about >the last open msg-id point, a better name for the "LHS @ RHS" >productions ? I've interpreted an unrelated article from Bruce >elsewhere as support for "unique @ domain" productions, but >that's obviously dubious, You can count me in for getting rid of , but you can count me out for any name change for and . >> I suspect that some minor issues raised by Frank are yet to >> be addressed. >The msg-id and dot stuff isn't minor, the former is important, >the latter is erroneous. Here's the latest ABNF for a msg-id: >| msg-id = "<" unique "@" mdomain ">" >| unique = dot-atom-text / ( DQUOTE unique-quote DQUOTE ) >| unique-quote = ( "." [unique-part] ) / >| ( [unique-part] "." ) / >| ( [unique-part] unique-literal [unique-part] ) >| unique-part = 1*( atext / "." / unique-literal ) >| unique-literal = "(" / ")" / "," / ; all specials, minus ">", >| "[" / "]" / "@" / ; minus DQUOTE, minus "\", >| ":" / ";" / "<" / ; minus single ".", plus: >| ".." / "\\" / ( "\" DQUOTE ) >| mdomain = dot-atom-text / ("[" address-literal "]") >| address-literal = 1*( %d33-61 / ; printable ASCII minus >| %d63-90 / ; ">", "[", "\", "]" >| %d94-126 / ; plus "\[", "\\, "\]" >| "\[" / "\\" / "\]" ) Well not with those names :-( . But it is still not technically correct. It prevents the msg-id <"foo.bar.baz"@example.com> as required (because under RFC 2822 that is indistinguishable from ), but it also prevents <"@.@"@example.com> and there is no reason to do that (ugly though it may be). BTW, the "[[Adjacent dots should not be allowed]]" remark in the draft is not a correct description of the problem. -- 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@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sun Apr 10 22:52:34 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA13658 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:52:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3B2oQ7U072190 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:50:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3B2oQno072189 for ietf-usefor-skb; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:50:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3B2oP1b072183 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:50:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sethb@panix.com) Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7932E58AA7 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:50:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p3/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id j3B2oOf20818; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:50:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:50:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200504110250.j3B2oOf20818@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: ietf-usefor@imc.org In-reply-to: (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk) Subject: Re: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01.txt References: Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: "Charles Lindsey" wrote: > In "Dr John Stockton" > writes: >> In particular, that the form used, after removal of any >>".invalid", MUST NOT be a possible address for someone else, present >>or reasonable future. > > I am not sure. Sometimes people just add ".invalid" to their own genuine > address. That's why it says "someone _else_". >> Moreover, articles crossposted to many newsgroups SHOULD be >> considered to have been read once they have been seen in any of >> those groups." > >>But "many" is not the right word, surely. Cross-posting can be to 2 >>groups, and 2 < a few < many. > > s/many/several/ How about "multiple"? Seth From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Apr 11 06:24:37 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA29270 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 06:24:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BAN0oO010436 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:23:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3BAN0th010435 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:23:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtps-vbr1.xs4all.nl (smtps-vbr1.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.19]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BAMwsV010409 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:22:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rvtol@isolution.nl) Received: from isop10 (velvet.isolution.nl [194.109.164.102]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtps-vbr1.xs4all.nl (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3BAMp7s067131 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:22:56 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from rvtol@isolution.nl) Message-ID: <0f6c01c53e80$6d4372c0$0b01a8c0@isolution.nl> From: "Ruud H.G. van Tol" To: References: <200504110250.j3B2oOf20818@panix5.panix.com> Subject: Re: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01.txt Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:15:50 +0200 Organization: Chaos rules. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Seth Breidbart: > Charles Lindsey: >> Dr John Stockton: >>> In particular, that the form used, after removal of any >>> ".invalid", MUST NOT be a possible address for someone else, >>> present or reasonable future. >> I am not sure. Sometimes people just add ".invalid" to their own >> genuine address. > That's why it says "someone _else_". Same observation here. The "for" didn't emphasize the issue of ownership (or permission) though, so it was easy to read it otherwise, like the "someone else" being the spammert. -- Grtz, Ruud From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Apr 11 07:14:09 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA02544 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BBClG3032398 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 04:12:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3BBClZU032397 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 04:12:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.195]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j3BBCjfk032346 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 04:12:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-71-41.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.71.41 with poptime) by smtp805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Apr 2005 11:12:39 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j3B9wOe13681 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:58:24 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20650 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!clerew!x Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id j3B9uWG13620 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:56:33 +0100 (BST) Subject: Fwd: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt References: Message-ID: To: local.usefor@clerew.man.ac.uk From: "Charles Lindsey" Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:56:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera M2(BETA1)/8.00 (SunOS, build 913) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ------- Forwarded message ------- From: "Dr John Stockton" To: "Charles. H. Lindsey" Subject: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:44:55 +0100 I've also been reading http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt, April 2005. "Changes since draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-01 ... o Only allow "UT and "GMT" in Date header; disallow all other ." AIUI, it is UTC and not UT that is distributed by time servers, in which case a label UT would in practice be incorrect in principle. UT != UTC. Anyway, IIRC, UT is GMT, except when it is the University of Texas. Note that while input of UTC should allow 23:59:60, in this context output should not generate it, since an error of <= one second is better than a risk of a receiving agent getting upset about it. A posting agent can just wait for a leap second to have finished. However, I see that the tenor of 3.1.2 is incompatible with the introduction of UTC. "1.1 Basic Concepts "Netnews" is a set of protocols for generating, storing and retrieving news "articles" (which are a subset of Email messages)" They are surely not a subset of E-mail messages. They might be described as similar. But E-mail is now commonly HTML & News should not be; I'd omit the parenthetic analogy. "1.2 Scope ... An best ..." Ouch. "1.5 Definitions ... When an article is posted to more than one newsgroup, it is said to be "crossposted"; ..." 'When a single [copy of an ] article ...' ??? "2.2 Headers" and elsewhere. The common understanding of "Header[s]" is "That cabalistic stuff before the message starts", whereas Header is evidently used here to refer to a logical line starting with such as "Date: ". ISTM that, clear definitions notwithstanding, there is an undue risk of reader error unless there is a very clear written distinction in all references to the entire heading material, the logical (de-folded) lines, and the physical (to CRLF) lines. That part got me confused. "3.1.2 Date" ISTM that "GMT" is useful to the human reader, as indicating a choice of the world standard time rather than the local one. My Turnpike here uses +0000 in Winter Time, which carries an expectation that it will use +0100 in Summer Time, and that the relevant agent is in the London time zone. GMT would carry no such implication. Then agents such as Google should be encouraged to use GMT rather than -0800, if they cannot use the author's zone. In other words, I suggest un-deprecation of GMT (and/or UT/UTC). Presumably absence of a numeric offset indication, while not allowed, would be treated as +0000. "3.3.1 Lines" This may not be needed for the transmission of News; but it is very useful for Kill Rules. Therefore, IMHO it should be compulsory, not obsolete (unless replaced by, say, 'Bytes'). "5. Security Considerations ... Agents that generate message-ids for news articles SHOULD ensure that they are unpredictable." It would be undesirable to lose the ability to kill-rule on partial message-ID, or to kill spam addressed to message-IDs using partial ID, or to search news databases on partial ID. Therefore, I suggest something like "incompletely predictable". The right hand side in fact should be predictable. Example : the first two of the last four characters of a Turnpike message-ID are, for a given setup, constant over long periods of time; mine are currently Fw. Therefore, it could be useful for me to kill all mail to .*fw..@, provided that I have no user called halfwit@ or similar. AIUI, newer Turnpike allows the user to choose the last few characters of the left part, which is even better as a kill target. Regards, -- 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@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Apr 11 10:39:22 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18370 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:39:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BEaqTJ003987 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:36:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3BEaq4n003986 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:36:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BEamHX003967 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:36:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DKzxX-0006do-Ce for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:32:15 +0200 Received: from c-134-88-77.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.88.77]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:32:15 +0200 Received: from nobody by c-134-88-77.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:32:15 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Broken Message-ID syntax Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:32:03 +0200 Organization: Lines: 44 Message-ID: <425A8A63.268A@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4255153E.3080500@isode.com> <42594879.3B92@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-88-77.hh.dial.de.ignite.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > you can count me out for any name change for and > . That's why we need a third opinion like Alexejs's about this point, or a better question. A recent joke on ietf.general: /\ /\ __/ \__ ___/ \___/\___ _/\__/\__/\_ consensus rough consensus bad question [ABNF] > Well not with those names :-( . As long as the RHS contains "domain" and the "address-literal" is an "address-literal" you could beutify it, all productions starting with "id-" could be a good idea (id-local, id-domain, etc.) > It prevents the msg-id > <"foo.bar.baz"@example.com> > as required Yes, that's the idea: Leading dot or trailing dot or unique-literal <=> quote No leading/trailing dot and no unique-literal <=> don't quote > it also prevents > <"@.@"@example.com> "@" is a "unique literal" => quote. Working as designed. "@" is no atext => no dot-atom-text => unquoted is illegal. Where's the problem ? > the "[[Adjacent dots should not be allowed]]" remark in > the draft is not a correct description of the problem. In the proposed "unique" ABNF adjacent dots are handled by ".." in "unique-literal". Ugly like hell, but who cares if it's correct. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Apr 11 11:52:39 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24001 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:52:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BFpKbG019098 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:51:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3BFpKk1019097 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:51:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BFpJqN019080 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:51:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j3BFpEVO022083; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:51:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j3BFpEmU022082; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:51:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:51:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: Path header delimiters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, Charles Lindsey wrote: > E. A variant on scheme D > Path: good-site.com!!mallet.com!MISMATCH!dodgy.com!old-site.com! > new-site.com!!injector.com!POSTED!not-for-mail > This avoids any delimiter other than '!', but it assumes that two > delimiters in succession will not cause any trouble. But it is clear that > RFC 1036 permits such usage... This sounds good to me. The one slight amendment I would suggest would be to use "AKA" -- Also Known As -- instead of MISMATCH, making it a bit clearer just what's going on. (I struggled to find a concise way of writing "claimed to be", which is the underlying idea, and this was the best I could think of.) I support scheme E even if this suggestion is not accepted. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Apr 11 12:14:03 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25616 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BGChVj023522 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:12:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3BGChfa023520 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:12:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.139]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j3BGCgPA023491 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:12:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from chl@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-77-126.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.77.126 with poptime) by smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Apr 2005 16:12:35 -0000 Received: (from chl@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j3BCChM14516; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:12:43 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:12:43 +0100 (BST) From: Charles Lindsey Message-Id: <200504111212.j3BCChM14516@clerew.man.ac.uk> To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Cc: "Dr John Stockton" Subject: Re: Fwd: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt References: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In local.usefor you write: >------- Forwarded message ------- >From: "Dr John Stockton" >To: "Charles. H. Lindsey" >Subject: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt >Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:44:55 +0100 >I've also been reading >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt, >April 2005. I think most of these points are for Ken Murchison to answer. So I shall just make a few comments. >"Changes since draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-01 >... > o Only allow "UT and "GMT" in Date header; disallow all other zone>." >AIUI, it is UTC and not UT that is distributed by time servers, in which >case a label UT would in practice be incorrect in principle. UT != UTC. >Anyway, IIRC, UT is GMT, except when it is the University of Texas. The only reason these two s remain in the draft is that they are in current widespread use (well, GMT is anyway). So they must continue to be accepted, even though they MUST NOT be generated in future. Generally speaking, neither news nor email software cares in the least about the subtleties of UTC vs GMT. Times, as they appear in Date headers, are just approximations to the time the article was written, and cannot be assumed to be accurate to better than a few minutes. >Note that while input of UTC should allow 23:59:60,... That format for time is already permitted by RFC 2822, though I doubt any operating system ever produces it in real practice. >"1.1 Basic Concepts > "Netnews" is a set of protocols for generating, storing and > retrieving news "articles" (which are a subset of Email messages)" >They are surely not a subset of E-mail messages. They might be >described as similar. But E-mail is now commonly HTML & News should not >be; I'd omit the parenthetic analogy. Yes, it might be better to say "(whose format is a subset of that for Email messages)". Ken? >"1.5 Definitions >... > When an article is posted to more than one newsgroup, it > is said to be "crossposted"; ..." >'When a single [copy of an ] article ...' ??? I am not convinced that needs changing. >"2.2 Headers" and elsewhere. >The common understanding of "Header[s]" is "That cabalistic stuff before >the message starts", whereas Header is evidently used here to refer to a >logical line starting with such as "Date: ". We took a conscious decision to use the terminology in widespread use, rather than that defined in RFC 2822. The new NNTP draft is following that same approach. So the "cabalistic stuff" is the "Headers" (plural) and the Date header, for example, is a "Header" (singular). >ISTM that, clear definitions notwithstanding, there is an undue risk of >reader error unless there is a very clear written distinction in all >references to the entire heading material, the logical (de-folded) >lines, and the physical (to CRLF) lines. That part got me confused. I think (hope) that the draft always makes it clear from the context when a single "header line" is being discussed. >"3.1.2 Date" >ISTM that "GMT" is useful to the human reader, as indicating a choice of >the world standard time rather than the local one. My Turnpike here >uses +0000 in Winter Time, which carries an expectation that it will use >+0100 in Summer Time, and that the relevant agent is in the London time >zone. GMT would carry no such implication. Then agents such as Google >should be encouraged to use GMT rather than -0800, if they cannot use >the author's zone. In other words, I suggest un-deprecation of GMT >(and/or UT/UTC). I don't think there has ever been any expectation that you can guess, from somebody's Date header, whether that somebody lives in a location where daylight saving applies. And I believe Madrid also uses +0000 in Winter (and if Madrid doesn't, then Lisbon surely will - and what about Casablanca)? Generally speaking, the poster's timezone, as written, should be preserved as the article propagates or gets stored (indeed, gratuitous changes of headers are forbidden by Usepro). I find it useful to know whether someone really was taking the trouble to stay up late to respond to my messages. >Presumably absence of a numeric offset indication, while not allowed, >would be treated as +0000. Possibly. >"3.3.1 Lines" >This may not be needed for the transmission of News; but it is very >useful for Kill Rules. Therefore, IMHO it should be compulsory, not >obsolete (unless replaced by, say, 'Bytes'). I think the WG agreed early on that this header had passed its sell-by-date, though I do not think we intended it to be declared "obsolete" as the current Usefor draft implies. I think "obsolescent" is the right term. At least the draft does define exactly which lines are supposed to get counted, which had always been a bit vague hitherto. >"5. Security Considerations >... > Agents that generate message-ids for news articles > SHOULD ensure that they are unpredictable." >It would be undesirable to lose the ability to kill-rule on partial >message-ID, or to kill spam addressed to message-IDs using partial ID, >or to search news databases on partial ID. Therefore, I suggest >something like "incompletely predictable". The right hand side in fact >should be predictable. RFC 2822 RECOMMENDS (which is a pretty strong term) that the RHS should be the domain of the sender (or of his ISP), and Usefor inherits that RECCOMENDATION. -- 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@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Apr 11 12:14:08 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25634 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BGCdGc023504 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:12:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3BGCdrc023503 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:12:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.139]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j3BGCcVS023474 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:12:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-77-126.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.77.126 with poptime) by smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Apr 2005 16:12:32 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j3BGCEZ15275 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:12:14 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20651 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01.txt Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <200504110250.j3B2oOf20818@panix5.panix.com> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:14:32 GMT Lines: 29 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <200504110250.j3B2oOf20818@panix5.panix.com> Seth Breidbart writes: >"Charles Lindsey" wrote: >> In "Dr John Stockton" >> writes: >>> Moreover, articles crossposted to many newsgroups SHOULD be >>> considered to have been read once they have been seen in any of >>> those groups." >> >>>But "many" is not the right word, surely. Cross-posting can be to 2 >>>groups, and 2 < a few < many. >> >> s/many/several/ >How about "multiple"? I think "several" is good enough. Anyone else preferring "multiple"? -- 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@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Apr 11 13:35:55 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02824 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:35:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BHXvoP040743 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:33:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3BHXvlI040742 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:33:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from a.mail.peak.org (a.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.41]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BHXu7E040718 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:33:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by a.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j3BHXokK038935 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:33:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:33:50 -0700 (PDT) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Differences between RFC 2822 and Usefor Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: "Charles Lindsey" : > Differences between RFC 2822 and Usefor. > ---------------------------------------- >2.11 A References header MUST be provided for followups (as opposed to >SHOULD be provided for replies in RFC 2822). Would you care to explain where you are getting this difference? In draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt, the References header is defined thusly: >3.2.1 References > The References header is the same as that specified in Section 3.6.4 > of [RFC2822] with the added restrictions detailed in Section 2.2 and > those listed below: Section 2.2 does not say anything about specific headers (and nothing at all about References), and the remaining part of 3.2.1 says nothing about followups and MUST. RFC2822 says "SHOULD". There is no section 2.11 at all, much less one that creates a difference between RFC2822 and USEFOR. So, it appears to me that the artificial requirement for References has been removed from the draft, as would be proper based upon a strict reading of RFC2119 and when a MUST is appropriate. So be it. That's one way of solving the debate between "followups MUST/non-followups MUST NOT" and "followups MUST/non-followups MAY". Not the way I would have picked, but one that is certainly RFC2119 conforming. Of course, now that this change has been made, it will require a full justification for putting back an extraneous (w.r.t. RFC2119) MUST condition. There is no interoperability issue, nothing breaks when it isn't there, so it will take some special arguments to justify replacing it. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Apr 11 13:44:43 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03433 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:44:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BHhaEF043044 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:43:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3BHhaje043043 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:43:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from b.mail.peak.org (b.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.42]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BHhaJ0043019 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:43:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by b.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j3BHhUTF066946 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:43:30 -0700 (PDT) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Issues outstanding Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: "Charles Lindsey" : >(Oddly, I noticed that John Stanley was in favour of Posted-And-Mailed - Why is this so odd, Charles? I was one of the people who worked on the draft that tried to define PAM and MCT. Do you think I would have spent my time on that were I opposed to them? >he is quite right, but if Mail- Copies-To has to wait, then >Posted-And-Mailed must wait too.) If our task is to document existing practice, and if you were correct in writing: >It is still not clear (to me) what the objection to keeping them is, and I >see no merit at all in #2b (since these headers are in moderately common >use, and the "experiment" has, in effect, been done). as Alexy quoted you as saying, then it would be incorrect NOT to include them. Are they not "current practice", are they NOT in moderately common use, or are we sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the task we are supposed to accomplish here? I notice that Alexy did not debate the validitiy of your statement, he just decided the issue is closed and we will not document existing practice here. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Apr 11 14:47:04 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07990 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:47:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BIjjOX055327 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:45:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3BIjjSW055326 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:45:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.Stanford.EDU (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.123]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BIjiff055319 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:45:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j3BIjhW3009007 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:45:43 -0700 Received: (qmail 32689 invoked by uid 1000); 11 Apr 2005 18:45:43 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org, "Dr John Stockton" Subject: Re: Fwd: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt In-Reply-To: <200504111212.j3BCChM14516@clerew.man.ac.uk> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:12:43 +0100 (BST)") References: <200504111212.j3BCChM14516@clerew.man.ac.uk> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:45:43 -0700 Message-ID: <87psx1gnjc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4 (Jumbo Shrimp, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey writes: > "Dr John Stockton" writes: >> "3.3.1 Lines" >> This may not be needed for the transmission of News; but it is very >> useful for Kill Rules. Therefore, IMHO it should be compulsory, not >> obsolete (unless replaced by, say, 'Bytes'). Kill Rules are based on overview information, not on article headers except in unusual situations (since killing on full headers is very slow). Overview contains its own line count that has nothing to do with an article header; this is specified by the NNTP protocol. You will find, if you analyze articles in the wild, that a significant percentage of Lines headers are wrong. > I think the WG agreed early on that this header had passed its > sell-by-date, though I do not think we intended it to be declared > "obsolete" as the current Usefor draft implies. I believe that we did. We intended it to be declared obsolete in the sense that nothing should generate it and nothing should use it. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Apr 11 14:59:45 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08835 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:59:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BIwH36057762 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:58:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3BIwHgK057761 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:58:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BIwEQw057740 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:58:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DL43W-0004CA-5n for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:54:42 +0200 Received: from 212.82.251.33 ([212.82.251.33]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:54:42 +0200 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.33 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:54:42 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Path header delimiters Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:56:47 +0200 Organization: Lines: 12 Message-ID: <425AC86F.2004@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.33 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Henry Spencer wrote: > I would suggest would be to use "AKA" -- Also Known As -- > instead of MISMATCH Two problems: MISMATCH is already "common practice", and we hope that no UUCP host MISMATCH existed, and that no TLD with this name will be introduced. For "AKA" I'm less sure, funny host names are AI, IO, PH, PN, TM, and TW - in theory these hosts could be news servers. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Apr 11 15:10:35 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10337 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:10:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BJ9auO059661 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:09:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3BJ9ab7059660 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:09:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from spsystems.net (spsystems.net [216.126.83.115]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BJ9abd059650 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:09:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from henry@spsystems.net) Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j3BJ9WVO024343; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:09:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from henry@localhost) by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j3BJ9WTO024342; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:09:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:09:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Henry Spencer To: Usefor Mailing List Subject: Re: Path header delimiters In-Reply-To: <425AC86F.2004@xyzzy.claranet.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > I would suggest would be to use "AKA" -- Also Known As -- > > instead of MISMATCH > > Two problems: MISMATCH is already "common practice"... As a standalone item in the path content? I think not. There is some vaguely-related existing practice of appending it to server names, which might be considered a minor point in its favor. > and we > hope that no UUCP host MISMATCH existed, and that no TLD with > this name will be introduced. For "AKA" I'm less sure... We can quite reasonably have the same hopes for AKA. Remember also that it doesn't greatly matter whether AKA is potentially a valid server name, because such a server can be known by a nickname (e.g. "news.aka") for news purposes. This would be a nuisance for its proprietors, yes, but not a problem for the net as a whole. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Apr 11 16:02:12 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15727 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:02:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BK02ZE069521 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:00:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3BK02Zp069520 for ietf-usefor-skb; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:00:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3BK00VW069503 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:00:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DL51h-0005A7-Fi for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:56:53 +0200 Received: from 212.82.251.33 ([212.82.251.33]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:56:53 +0200 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.33 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:56:53 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Path header delimiters Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:58:39 +0200 Organization: Lines: 25 Message-ID: <425AD6EF.448A@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <425AC86F.2004@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.33 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Henry Spencer wrote: [MISMATCH] > As a standalone item in the path content? I think not. Probably I was wrong, a quick check confirmed your version ".MISMATCH" added to the host name, not "!MISMATCH". > This would be a nuisance for its proprietors, yes, but not > a problem for the net as a whole. Also true, the former host TV apparently found a better name. A potential host AKA after the introduction of TLD AKA could also do this as news server. Besides ...!news.aka!AKA!... would be fun. More fun: Any news about publishing s-o-1036 as RfC 4036 ? It's apparently not yet in the RfC editor queue. Less fun: Charles and I need a volunteer for some kind of "rough consensus" about the names (sic!) of some msg-id ABNF productions, could you please toss a coin or add a comment ? Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Apr 12 05:33:17 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA12653 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:33:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3C9W4ur043058 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 02:32:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3C9W4H3043057 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 02:32:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3C9W1WJ043010 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 02:32:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [192.168.0.3] ([62.3.217.253]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:31:55 +0100 Message-ID: <425B958A.9010107@isode.com> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:31:54 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Allbery CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org, Dr John Stockton Subject: Re: Fwd: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt References: <200504111212.j3BCChM14516@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87psx1gnjc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <87psx1gnjc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russ Allbery wrote: >Charles Lindsey writes: > > >>"Dr John Stockton" writes: >> >> >>>"3.3.1 Lines" >>> >>> >>>This may not be needed for the transmission of News; but it is very >>>useful for Kill Rules. Therefore, IMHO it should be compulsory, not >>>obsolete (unless replaced by, say, 'Bytes'). >>> >>> > >Kill Rules are based on overview information, not on article headers >except in unusual situations (since killing on full headers is very slow). >Overview contains its own line count that has nothing to do with an >article header; this is specified by the NNTP protocol. > >You will find, if you analyze articles in the wild, that a significant >percentage of Lines headers are wrong. > > >>I think the WG agreed early on that this header had passed its >>sell-by-date, though I do not think we intended it to be declared >>"obsolete" as the current Usefor draft implies. >> >> >I believe that we did. We intended it to be declared obsolete in the >sense that nothing should generate it and nothing should use it. > > Exactly. I don't think any clarification in the document is needed. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Apr 12 07:14:05 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA19776 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:14:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CBCfS1078142 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 04:12:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3CBCfp2078141 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 04:12:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.201]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j3CBCceg078094 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 04:12:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-77-234.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.77.234 with poptime) by smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Apr 2005 11:12:31 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j3CBCFj21322 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:12:15 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20662 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Differences between RFC 2822 and Usefor Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:08:04 GMT Lines: 62 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In John Stanley writes: >"Charles Lindsey" : >> Differences between RFC 2822 and Usefor. >> ---------------------------------------- >>2.11 A References header MUST be provided for followups (as opposed to >>SHOULD be provided for replies in RFC 2822). >Would you care to explain where you are getting this difference? In >draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt, the References header is defined thusly: The "SHOULD" in question is in the first paragraph of section 3.6.4 of RFC 2822. In consequence of that SHOULD, many MUAs still regard providing a References header as an "optional extra", with the consequence that attempts to display threading in mailing lists (including this one) usually succeed only in showing broken threads. The "MUST" in question arises from the long held consensus in this Working Group that the References header in News is NOT an "optional extra". And you yourself have been at the forefront in upholding that consensus. There is a disagreement as to how exactly that requirement should be expressed, and as to how the wording should reflect the use of the References header in the case of multipart FAQs and the like, but there is no disagreement at all that it MUST be provided in cases where a poster follows up (responds/replies/whatever) to an article from an earlier poster. That clear requirement has been in all our drafts up to article-13. >>3.2.1 References >> The References header is the same as that specified in Section 3.6.4 >> of [RFC2822] with the added restrictions detailed in Section 2.2 and >> those listed below: >Section 2.2 does not say anything about specific headers (and nothing at >all about References), and the remaining part of 3.2.1 says nothing about >followups and MUST. RFC2822 says "SHOULD". The text regarding the References header in the new usefor-03 draft is just plain WRONG. Yes. the bit about section 2.2 covers the obligatory SP after the ':', as required in all headers, and the "listed below" refers to the avoidance of comments (MUST accept but do not generate yet). But the requirement for the header to be present for followups has been omitted, and it needs to be put back (modulo the relatively minor matter of the precise wording). And there is also an error in the syntax of the References header, which Frank Ellermann pointed out some while back, and which needs to be corrected. -- 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@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Apr 12 08:02:55 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22579 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:02:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CC1IF8095225 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:01:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3CC1IoO095223 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:01:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j3CC1Ee3095146 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:01:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-77-103.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.77.103 with poptime) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Apr 2005 12:01:08 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j3CC0tQ22216 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:00:55 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20665 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Path header delimiters Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:36:53 GMT Lines: 32 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In Henry Spencer writes: >On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Frank Ellermann wrote: >> > I would suggest would be to use "AKA" -- Also Known As -- >> > instead of MISMATCH >> >> Two problems: MISMATCH is already "common practice"... >As a standalone item in the path content? I think not. There is some >vaguely-related existing practice of appending it to server names, which >might be considered a minor point in its favor. You are damning it with faint praise :-) . Actually, I think I prefer MISMATCH, not only because it is close to some existing practice, but also because it is a conspicuous word that will shout out at you "there is something fishy about this Path" whenever you see it. Anyway, it a minor detail as regards scheme E, which seems to be gaining added consenus. Does anyone else want to play? -- 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@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Apr 12 08:03:08 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22636 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CC1MUb095262 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:01:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3CC1MUZ095261 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:01:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j3CC1FQI095153 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:01:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-77-103.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.77.103 with poptime) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Apr 2005 12:01:09 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j3CC0sr22211 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:00:54 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20664 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Broken Message-ID syntax Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4255153E.3080500@isode.com> <42594879.3B92@xyzzy.claranet.de> <425A8A63.268A@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:31:32 GMT Lines: 41 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <425A8A63.268A@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >> It prevents the msg-id >> <"foo.bar.baz"@example.com> >> as required >Yes, that's the idea: >Leading dot or trailing dot or unique-literal <=> quote >No leading/trailing dot and no unique-literal <=> don't quote >> it also prevents >> <"@.@"@example.com> >"@" is a "unique literal" => quote. Working as designed. >"@" is no atext => no dot-atom-text => unquoted is illegal. >Where's the problem ? The problem is that anything with an "@" in it (or various other weird characters) clearly MUST be quoted, but your syntax does not allow me to say <"@.@"@example.com> (though it would allow <"@..@"@example.com>). >In the proposed "unique" ABNF adjacent dots are handled by >".." in "unique-literal". Ugly like hell, but who cares if >it's correct. And I suspect it will be even uglier after the "@.@" bug is fixed :-( . But let us get a working correct syntax first, and then we can see whether there is a neater way to express it. -- 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@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Apr 12 08:48:11 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22580 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:02:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CC1Jtq095236 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:01:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3CC1JS4095235 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:01:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j3CC1Isa095179 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:01:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-77-103.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.77.103 with poptime) by smtp801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Apr 2005 12:01:11 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j3CC0rq22205 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:00:53 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20663 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Fwd: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <200504111212.j3BCChM14516@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87psx1gnjc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:23:40 GMT Lines: 61 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87psx1gnjc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Charles Lindsey writes: >> "Dr John Stockton" writes: >>> "3.3.1 Lines" >>> This may not be needed for the transmission of News; but it is very >>> useful for Kill Rules. Therefore, IMHO it should be compulsory, not >>> obsolete (unless replaced by, say, 'Bytes'). >Kill Rules are based on overview information, not on article headers >except in unusual situations (since killing on full headers is very slow). >Overview contains its own line count that has nothing to do with an >article header; this is specified by the NNTP protocol. I think it is up to individual implementors of reading agents whether to provide kill file facilities on all headers, or only on those in the overview; some do, some don't. >You will find, if you analyze articles in the wild, that a significant >percentage of Lines headers are wrong. Indeed, but any killfile rule is likely to be expressed as "kill all articles where Lines > 1000", in which case absolute accuracy of the line count hardly matters. But I agree that there are better ways of killing overly long articles. >> I think the WG agreed early on that this header had passed its >> sell-by-date, though I do not think we intended it to be declared >> "obsolete" as the current Usefor draft implies. >I believe that we did. We intended it to be declared obsolete in the >sense that nothing should generate it and nothing should use it. The wording actually used, which has not changed since our very early drafts, was This header is to be regarded as obsolete, and it will likely be removed entirely in a future version of this standard. In the meantime, its use is deprecated. Which to me indicates "It is not obsolete yet, but it soon will be, so it is not really a good idea to use it". I think we did it that way because we wanted to document the correct way to do the count (because implementations regularly did it wrong), but there was still a widespread usage of it, which was likely to continue for some while. To my mind, the proper word to describe that situation is "obsolescent", rather than "obsolete". -- 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@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Apr 12 12:02:10 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10381 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:02:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CG0elD031831 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:00:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3CG0edL031830 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:00:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CG0cUH031822 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:00:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov-usefor@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.2.185] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:00:35 +0100 Message-ID: <425BF0A3.3020708@isode.com> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:00:35 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Lindsey CC: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Differences between RFC 2822 and Usefor References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: >>>3.2.1 References >>> >>> >>> The References header is the same as that specified in Section 3.6.4 >>> of [RFC2822] with the added restrictions detailed in Section 2.2 and >>> those listed below: >>> >>> >>Section 2.2 does not say anything about specific headers (and nothing at >>all about References), and the remaining part of 3.2.1 says nothing about >>followups and MUST. RFC2822 says "SHOULD". >> >> > >The text regarding the References header in the new usefor-03 draft is >just plain WRONG. > >Yes. the bit about section 2.2 covers the obligatory SP after the ':', as >required in all headers, and the "listed below" refers to the avoidance of >comments (MUST accept but do not generate yet). > >But the requirement for >the header to be present for followups has been omitted, and it needs to >be put back (modulo the relatively minor matter of the precise wording). > > No it is not, because this is not a USEFOR business to say anything about followups. Any given article doesn't become valid/invalid because of presence or lack of References. USEFOR doesn't deal with a thread of messages, this is a protocol issue. >And there is also an error in the syntax of the References header, which >Frank Ellermann pointed out some while back, and which needs to be >corrected. > This should be fixed or at least discussed. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Apr 12 13:01:16 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16018 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:01:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CGxsKS037542 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:59:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3CGxsQ2037541 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:59:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CGxrQA037532 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:59:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sethb@panix.com) Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936CA58B3B for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:59:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p3/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id j3CGxq628085; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:59:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:59:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200504121659.j3CGxq628085@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: ietf-usefor@imc.org In-reply-to: (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk) Subject: Re: Path header delimiters References: Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: > Anyway, it a minor detail as regards scheme E, which seems to be > gaining added consenus. Does anyone else want to play? Sure. consensus++ Seth From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Apr 12 14:53:49 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25043 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:53:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CIqeQQ047274 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:52:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3CIqefV047273 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:52:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.Stanford.EDU (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CIqd33047261 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:52:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j3CIqc7b001663 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:52:38 -0700 Received: (qmail 22549 invoked by uid 1000); 12 Apr 2005 18:52:38 -0000 To: Dr John Stockton Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Fwd: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt In-Reply-To: <4XACZ2FxV$WCFwUM@merlyn.demon.co.uk> (John Stockton's message of "Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:21:05 +0100") References: <200504111212.j3BCChM14516@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87psx1gnjc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4XACZ2FxV$WCFwUM@merlyn.demon.co.uk> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:52:37 -0700 Message-ID: <87oecjx1xm.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4 (Jumbo Shrimp, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: John Stockton writes: > I use Turnpike. It has kill-rules acting on article headers. With a > general rule using a RegExp one can kill or accept by a wide variety of > criteria. But in the controlling dialogue of the version that I use > there is specific provision for "Number of lines ... (as recorded in the > header)" - enter a number, rather than compose a RegExp - evidently, an > Internet Expert must have considered Lines to be useful information.. > I find this useful in newsgroups where a few users tend to post whole > web pages, computer programs, or essays. Yes. I'm not disagreeing about the usefulness of that sort of killfile rule. I'm saying that Turnpike should apply that rule against the overview information, which is guaranteed to be correct. You'll get exactly the same results, faster, and more reliably. If it's using the Lines header in the article, it's getting occasionally bogus results right now. The standard is intended to tell Turnpike and other news readers that do this to stop and use the overview information instead. Declaring this to be a bug in Turnpike is fully intentional. >> I believe that we did. We intended it to be declared obsolete in the >> sense that nothing should generate it and nothing should use it. > That will not meet with universal agreement. It generally does as soon as people understand what I mean when I say that a better version of that information is already in the overview data. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Apr 12 15:01:01 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25487 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:01:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CIxVr1047677 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:59:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3CIxV1x047676 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:59:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.Stanford.EDU (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.123]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CIxUIp047669 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:59:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j3CIxTo8009174 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:59:30 -0700 Received: (qmail 22722 invoked by uid 1000); 12 Apr 2005 18:59:29 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Fwd: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:23:40 GMT") References: <200504111212.j3BCChM14516@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87psx1gnjc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:59:29 -0700 Message-ID: <87fyxvx1m6.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4 (Jumbo Shrimp, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey writes: > Russ Allbery writes: >> Kill Rules are based on overview information, not on article headers >> except in unusual situations (since killing on full headers is very >> slow). Overview contains its own line count that has nothing to do >> with an article header; this is specified by the NNTP protocol. > I think it is up to individual implementors of reading agents whether to > provide kill file facilities on all headers, or only on those in the > overview; some do, some don't. Except for Lines. Lines should always be applied against overview. > Indeed, but any killfile rule is likely to be expressed as "kill all > articles where Lines > 1000", in which case absolute accuracy of the > line count hardly matters. But I agree that there are better ways of > killing overly long articles. Like EXACTLY THAT KILLFILE RULE, but applied against the guaranteed-accurate overview information. > The wording actually used, which has not changed since our very early > drafts, was > This header is to be regarded as obsolete, and it will likely be > removed entirely in a future version of this standard. In the > meantime, its use is deprecated. > Which to me indicates "It is not obsolete yet, but it soon will be, so > it is not really a good idea to use it". I think we did it that way > because we wanted to document the correct way to do the count (because > implementations regularly did it wrong), but there was still a > widespread usage of it, which was likely to continue for some while. > To my mind, the proper word to describe that situation is "obsolescent", > rather than "obsolete". I think I see what you're saying -- it's not obsolete in the sense that Path is obsolete (where news servers actually reject messages containing the header). I'm fine with the wording; I guess I don't really care whether that means "obsolete" or "obsolescent" as long as the key point is expressed: don't use the header and don't bother creating it. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Apr 12 15:04:50 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25867 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:04:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CJ464C047876 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:04:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3CJ466b047875 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:04:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp1.Stanford.EDU (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.123]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CJ45vX047868 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:04:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j3CJ45Lt011240 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:04:05 -0700 Received: (qmail 23592 invoked by uid 1000); 12 Apr 2005 19:04:04 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Path header delimiters In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:36:53 GMT") References: From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:04:04 -0700 Message-ID: <87br8jx1ej.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4 (Jumbo Shrimp, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey writes: > Anyway, it a minor detail as regards scheme E, which seems to be gaining > added consenus. Does anyone else want to play? Giving semantic meaning to a doubled delimiter makes me nervous, just because that's something one generally doesn't do in protocols of this type. But that's just a vague, untargetted concern and I can't think of concrete problems that it would solve. It's the best solution I've seen so far, so I'm happy to go with it unless someone comes up with something better. I do think that this is an important problem for us to solve. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Apr 12 15:22:23 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28118 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:22:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CJLb6o048838 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:21:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3CJLbw9048837 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:21:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CJLakt048829 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:21:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from richard@highwayman.com) Received: from gti.noc.demon.net ([195.11.55.101] helo=happyday.al.cl.cam.ac.uk) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1DLQx5-000MnJ-Cv; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:21:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:20:10 +0100 To: Russ Allbery Cc: Dr John Stockton , ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Richard Clayton Subject: Re: Fwd: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt References: <200504111212.j3BCChM14516@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87psx1gnjc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4XACZ2FxV$WCFwUM@merlyn.demon.co.uk> <87oecjx1xm.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <87oecjx1xm.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.02 M Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message <87oecjx1xm.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>, Russ Allbery writes > >John Stockton writes: > >> I use Turnpike. It has kill-rules acting on article headers. With a >> general rule using a RegExp one can kill or accept by a wide variety of >> criteria. But in the controlling dialogue of the version that I use >> there is specific provision for "Number of lines ... (as recorded in the >> header)" - enter a number, rather than compose a RegExp - evidently, an >> Internet Expert must have considered Lines to be useful information.. > >> I find this useful in newsgroups where a few users tend to post whole >> web pages, computer programs, or essays. > >Yes. I'm not disagreeing about the usefulness of that sort of killfile >rule. I'm saying that Turnpike should apply that rule against the >overview information, which is guaranteed to be correct. which it can already do :) .... assuming of course that its heuristics (and configuration) mean that it is indeed fetching the overview info and it isn't just using HEAD commands (that will always "work") ... in the real world, clients currently have to guess (or be told) what facilities to use; and tend to err in favour of features that are bound to be available... ... hence the value of NNTP v2 :) >If it's using the Lines header in the article, it's getting occasionally >bogus results right now. The standard is intended to tell Turnpike and >other news readers that do this to stop and use the overview information >instead. Declaring this to be a bug in Turnpike is fully intentional. John should add USEXOVER=YES to the appropriate [NEWS xxx] part of his configuration file :) and the "bug" will not bite him - -- richard @ highwayman . com "Nothing seems the same Still you never see the change from day to day And no-one notices the customs slip away" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBQlwfapoAxkTY1oPiEQJrRwCfW7Md/LVN74iV2bP1SbCfHaZmqs0An376 8uo4K/bZlJr1+0lljqx46KYU =smJq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Apr 12 20:01:03 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26868 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:01:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CNxlQ5066798 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:59:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3CNxlYm066797 for ietf-usefor-skb; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:59:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3CNxiDr066783 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:59:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DLVEu-00086t-KU for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:56:16 +0200 Received: from 212.82.251.36 ([212.82.251.36]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:56:16 +0200 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.36 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:56:16 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Re: Broken Message-ID syntax Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:57:50 +0200 Organization: Lines: 47 Message-ID: <425C607E.1B5A@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4255153E.3080500@isode.com> <42594879.3B92@xyzzy.claranet.de> <425A8A63.268A@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.36 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > anything with an "@" in it (or various other weird > characters) clearly MUST be quoted, ACK > your syntax does not allow me to say <"@.@"@example.com> NAK | msg-id = "<" unique "@" mdomain ">" | unique = dot-atom-text / ( DQUOTE unique-quote DQUOTE ) Skipping some details for your msg-id <"@.@"@example.com> I get example.com ~ mdomain "@.@" ~ ( DQUOTE unique-quote DQUOTE ) Modulo DQUOTE that's @.@ ~ unique-quote | unique-quote = ( "." [unique-part] ) / | ( [unique-part] "." ) / | ( [unique-part] unique-literal [unique-part] ) @.@ doesn't start with a dot, it doesn't end with a dot, so let's try: @.@ ~ [unique-part] unique-literal [unique-part] Module @ ~ unique-literal it can match in two different ways: @ ~ unique-literal @. ~ unique-part .@ ~ unique-part @ ~ unique-literal | unique-part = 1*( atext / "." / unique-literal ) Note the dot "." in unique-part, this should work as desiged. > though it would allow <"@..@"@example.com> Any number of dots, zero, one, two, or more. > it will be even uglier after the "@.@" bug is fixed :-( . First I want to see a bug before we make it uglier than it is. It's already ambiguous, it can't get worse, unless it's plain wrong. Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Apr 13 12:13:54 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09766 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:13:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3DGCbfZ072659 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:12:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3DGCbPu072658 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:12:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.140]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j3DGCaOX072623 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:12:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-75-78.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.75.78 with poptime) by smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Apr 2005 16:12:30 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j3DGCDE00006 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:12:13 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20676 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Differences between RFC 2822 and Usefor Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <425BF0A3.3020708@isode.com> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:59:00 GMT Lines: 55 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <425BF0A3.3020708@isode.com> Alexey Melnikov writes: >Charles Lindsey wrote: >>The text regarding the References header in the new usefor-03 draft is >>just plain WRONG. >>But the requirement for >>the header to be present for followups has been omitted, and it needs to >>be put back (modulo the relatively minor matter of the precise wording). >> >> >No it is not, because this is not a USEFOR business to say anything >about followups. Any given article doesn't become valid/invalid because >of presence or lack of References. USEFOR doesn't deal with a thread of >messages, this is a protocol issue. Then why is RFC 2822 allowed to say that the References header SHOULD be present in the corresponding email situation? And why does the word "followup" occur 10 times in the Usefor draft? And why does the Usefor draft contain the words None of the headers appearing in this section is required to appear in every article but some of them are required in certain types of article, such as followups. And it says The References header is the same as that specified in Section 3.6.4 of [RFC2822] with the added restrictions detailed in Section 2.2 and those listed below: Which clearly implies that we have signed up to everything in RFC 2822 Section 3.6.4 except as detailed otherwise, which means that we have signed up to that "SHOULD", which we haven't. Netnews departs from RFC 2822 in various ways, which we document. Changing that "SHOULD" to a "MUST" is one of them (the identical SHOULD->MUST for Message-ID is another, but I do not see any objection to saying that). I understand that we intend to document these differences in an Appendix to Usefor, but how can we document differences that we are not allowed to describe? -- 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@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Apr 13 12:13:55 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09764 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:13:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3DGCaWA072649 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:12:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3DGCaMI072648 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:12:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.140]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j3DGCZ2l072621 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:12:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-75-78.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.75.78 with poptime) by smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Apr 2005 16:12:29 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j3DGCBV29988 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:12:11 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20674 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Path header delimiters Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <87br8jx1ej.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:24:17 GMT Lines: 31 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87br8jx1ej.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Charles Lindsey writes: >> Anyway, it a minor detail as regards scheme E, which seems to be gaining >> added consenus. Does anyone else want to play? >Giving semantic meaning to a doubled delimiter makes me nervous, just >because that's something one generally doesn't do in protocols of this >type. But that's just a vague, untargetted concern and I can't think of >concrete problems that it would solve. >It's the best solution I've seen so far, so I'm happy to go with it unless >someone comes up with something better. I do think that this is an >important problem for us to solve. OK, that makes it quite a smooth consensus compared to some we have had :-) . I shall write some text to incorporate it next week (no time at the moment - visiting grandchildren and a daughter getting married at the weekend). -- 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@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Apr 13 13:03:25 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09765 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:13:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3DGCXNP072632 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:12:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3DGCX7A072631 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:12:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.140]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j3DGCVux072613 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:12:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-75-78.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.75.78 with poptime) by smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Apr 2005 16:12:25 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j3DGCCp29996 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:12:12 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20675 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Fwd: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <200504111212.j3BCChM14516@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87psx1gnjc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87fyxvx1m6.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:27:14 GMT Lines: 21 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87fyxvx1m6.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >I think I see what you're saying -- it's not obsolete in the sense that >Path is obsolete (where news servers actually reject messages containing >the header). I'm fine with the wording; I guess I don't really care >whether that means "obsolete" or "obsolescent" as long as the key point is >expressed: don't use the header and don't bother creating it. Eh? Since when has Path been obsolete. Are you confusing it with some other ancient 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: chl@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Apr 13 13:03:26 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09763 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:13:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3DGCZwv072641 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:12:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3DGCZ7T072640 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:12:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.140]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j3DGCYCa072616 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:12:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from unknown (HELO host81-144-75-78.midband.mdip.bt.net) (ietf-usefor@imc.org@81.144.75.78 with poptime) by smtp803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Apr 2005 16:12:28 -0000 Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) id j3DGCDV00010 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:12:13 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:20677 Newsgroups: local.usefor Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Broken Message-ID syntax Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <4255153E.3080500@isode.com> <42594879.3B92@xyzzy.claranet.de> <425A8A63.268A@xyzzy.claranet.de> <425C607E.1B5A@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:04:57 GMT Lines: 34 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <425C607E.1B5A@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann writes: >Module @ ~ unique-literal it can match in two different ways: >@ ~ unique-literal @. ~ unique-part >.@ ~ unique-part @ ~ unique-literal >| unique-part = 1*( atext / "." / unique-literal ) >Note the dot "." in unique-part, this should work as desiged. Yes, you have convinced me now. So there remains the issue of the naming of the syntax rules, which I think needs a ruling from the Chair. Also, the wording needs to explain this additional problem (and also the reason for exlcusion of NO-WS-CONTROL). At the very least, the three examples given should be changed to: <"ab.cd"@example.com> <"ab.\cd"@example.com> -- 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@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 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Apr 13 16:04:20 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29252 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:04:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3DK2sfk086901 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:02:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3DK2s7b086900 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:02:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.Stanford.EDU (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.138]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3DK2sig086894 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:02:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j3DK2r0q031092 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:02:53 -0700 Received: (qmail 13475 invoked by uid 1000); 13 Apr 2005 20:02:53 -0000 To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Fwd: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-03.txt In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:27:14 GMT") References: <200504111212.j3BCChM14516@clerew.man.ac.uk> <87psx1gnjc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87fyxvx1m6.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:02:53 -0700 Message-ID: <87mzs2a1hu.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4 (Jumbo Shrimp, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Charles Lindsey writes: > Russ Allbery writes: >> I think I see what you're saying -- it's not obsolete in the sense that >> Path is obsolete (where news servers actually reject messages containing >> the header). I'm fine with the wording; I guess I don't really care >> whether that means "obsolete" or "obsolescent" as long as the key point is >> expressed: don't use the header and don't bother creating it. > Eh? Since when has Path been obsolete. Are you confusing it with some > other ancient header? Er, sorry, not Path, Received. Bleh. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Apr 13 16:36:12 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05267 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:36:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3DKYM4S089463 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:34:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3DKYMFk089462 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:34:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3DKYKOs089453 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:34:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from usenet-format@gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DLoUS-00012v-2F for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:29:36 +0200 Received: from 212.82.251.217 ([212.82.251.217]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:29:36 +0200 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.217 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:29:36 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-usefor@imc.org From: Frank Ellermann Subject: Fixed (was: Broken Message-ID syntax) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:25:21 +0200 Organization: Lines: 96 Message-ID: <425D8031.D57@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <4255153E.3080500@isode.com> <42594879.3B92@xyzzy.claranet.de> <425A8A63.268A@xyzzy.claranet.de> <425C607E.1B5A@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.217 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles Lindsey wrote: > Yes, you have convinced me now. Great, we have a msg-id syntax. > there remains the issue of the naming of the syntax rules, We're talking about seven names. So far we agree on msg-id, and we disagree on names for LHS, RHS, and address-literal. Maybe we can solve it for the remaining three names without bothering Alexey, Henry, or Ken: 1 - "unique-quote", the LHS if it must be quoted. If you hate "unique" a very traditional name would be "local". For a post-modern touch we could take "id". Maybe "quote" was too sloppy and "quoted" is better. Six possibilities: unique-quote local-quote id-quote unique-quoted local-quoted id-quoted 2 - "unique-part", the syntactically irrelevant stuff for the question "to quote or not to quote". Obviously we'd want the same prefix as in (1). Maybe "text" is better if we don't need it in (3): unique-part local-part id-part unique-text local-text id-text 3 - "unique-literal", something that requires quoting. The "literal" is somewhat dubious, 2822 and usefor-03 use it for the RHS, but here we are in the LHS Let's say that "literal" was a bad idea. Depending on (2) "text" could be fine. I also like "special" (as in your "mqspecial"): unique-text local-text id-text unique-special local-special id-special JFTR the three names where we are unable to find a compromise: 4 - "address-literal" vs. "no-fold-literal". You want the same name as in 2822 with a different syntax. For this reason I want a different name reflecting the semantics. We've established that the semantics is a "domain-literal" in RfC 2822, but that's already used for an 2822-construct with CFWS and FWS. A related source is RfC 2821, there the name is "address-literal". IMHO a typical case of "if it quacks like a duck...". 5 - "mdomain" vs. "id-right". As in (4), you want the name as in RfC 2822 with a different syntax. I want a name that reflects the semantics "domain". We've spent hours, days, and weeks with the prolem of the RHS in a Message-ID, because you said that it's no domain. I've shown that that's _not_ what 2822 means. AFAIK Bruce also disagrees with you. STD 11, RfC 1036, and s-o-1036 disagree with you. Abusing foreign namespaces is a serious problem. If you don't like "mdomain" you could pick "msg-domain" or "id-domain". But "id-right" is OUT as far as I'm concerned. 6 - "unique" vs. "id-left". A similar case as in (5). Maybe you feel that "unique" is too traditional, and "local" is even more traditional. OTOH it's true, so we could only beautify it a bit: msg-unique id-unique msg-local id-local We can use the prefix "id-" in (6), (5), (3), (2), and (1). Or the prefix "msg-" in (6), (5), we already have it in msg-id. > which I think needs a ruling from the Chair. Alexey as King Canute decreeing that the RHS is NOT a domain ? I don't think so. > the wording needs to explain this additional problem Not necessarily, leading / trailing / adjacent dots aren't new, it's exactly the same problem as in RfC 2822. > also the reason for exlcusion of NO-WS-CONTROL Maybe, but please state them all: It was never used, it never worked, it would be a PITA in news-URLs, it wasn't allowed in any news standard. More than one line of text, so that we have a line between these lines saying "2822 GOT IT WRONG - PERIOD." Bye, Frank From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Apr 13 17:23:35 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08347 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:23:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3DLM9la096060 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:22:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3DLM9vi096059 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:22:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from a.mail.peak.org (a.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.41]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3DLM8NS096047 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:22:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by a.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j3DLM2mO051869 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:22:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:22:02 -0700 (PDT) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Differences between RFC 2822 and Usefor (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Third attempt at one message. This "open list" does not seem to be accepting messages ... "Charles Lindsey" : >The "SHOULD" in question is in the first paragraph of section 3.6.4 of RFC >2822. I know where the SHOULD comes from. RFC2822 isn't "in question", it is an existing standard. The question is where you see a MUST in USEFOR. I don't see one. It simply isn't there. >The "MUST" in question arises from the long held consensus in this Working >Group that the References header in News is NOT an "optional extra". Not according to draft-usefor-03. According to draft-usefor-03, References is defined to be the same as in RFC2822, with the addition of a few bits that are not mandates for using it. This consensus you claim exists has a very odd way of being expressed in our products. Almost as if it doesn't really exist. The fact that I am the only one who even commented on it being gone is a pretty good sign that nobody cares that it is gone. >And you yourself have been at the forefront in upholding that consensus. Hardly. I've repeatedly said "IF we are going to say that References qualifies for RFC2119 mandates, THEN we should not water it down by saying that non-followups MAY contain them." That first clause is called a "conditional". If we DON'T say that References qualifies for such a mandate (and I've argued that it is hard to justify one, if you recall), then the situation is different. Like it is now. We currently do NOT say it is mandatory. Once we say that, the rest of the argument about WHEN it is mandatory goes away. >That clear requirement has been in all our drafts up to article-13. It is no longer a requirement at all in our draft. As you have been quick to tell me when I object to changes YOU make, things change. Our current draft does NOT make it a requirement; it is lunacy to claim that this lack of mandate reflects a "consensus" that there is a mandate, or that the complete lack of comment about the change (other than your expressed belief that a missing mandate is still a mandate) is a better sign of consensus than your word for it. At this point, the mandate is not part of the draft, and putting one in would (or at least, should, in an honest system) require a strong demonstration of interoperability issues. Since news systems simply do not care if the header is in the article or not, there is no way to demonstrate an interoperability issue, and thus RFC2119 language is not appropriate. I've accepted the change, why is the editor whose name is on it as author trying to claim it doesn't exist? >The text regarding the References header in the new usefor-03 draft is >just plain WRONG. Says you. If it was wrong, it should not have been sent off as our work product without a single person here seeing it. Well, ok, maybe someone here did see it, but it sure wasn't announced for review prior to it becoming official. >But the requirement for >the header to be present for followups has been omitted, and it needs to >be put back (modulo the relatively minor matter of the precise wording). You need to PROVE that NEED before you make a change to the draft. You saying "we need this" doesn't meet the requirements of RFC2119 and you know it. Were that all it takes, then we would be documenting PAM and MCT and making THEM mandatory. But, no. It doesn't work that way. You're taking all mention of those headers OUT of the drafts that still refer to them. >And there is also an error in the syntax of the References header, which >Frank Ellermann pointed out some while back, and which needs to be >corrected. Please stop trying to equate a syntax error with a change you want that has nothing to do with syntax. Making References optional (in accordance with RFC2822) is a different kind of change, and it's been made. Making it MANDATORY needs strong justification, and I'll await your attempts at same. "Because it was that way before" doesn't work when I object to a change you decide to make, don't pretend that you can use it as an excuse. From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Apr 13 17:41:09 2005 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09381 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:41:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3DLdldE097279 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:39:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3DLdliX097278 for ietf-usefor-skb; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:39:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from b.mail.peak.org (b.mail.peak.org [69.59.192.42]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3DLdkD5097271 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:39:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stanley@peak.org) Received: from a.shell.peak.org ([69.59.192.81]) by b.mail.peak.org (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j3DLde0j001422 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:39:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:39:40 -0700 (PDT) From: John Stanley X-X-Sender: stanley@a.shell.peak.org To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Differences between RFC 2822 and Usefor Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: "Charles Lindsey" : >And why does the Usefor draft contain the words > None of the headers appearing in this section is required to appear > in every article but some of them are required in certain types of > article, such as followups. Because someone (an editor, perhaps?) overlooked this statement when removing the mandate for References? Remove the "such as" clause and the problem is fixed. Do it and lets move on. Problem solved. >Which clearly implies that we have signed up to everything in RFC 2822 >Section 3.6.4 except as detailed otherwise, which means that we have >signed up to that "SHOULD", which we haven't. Clearly the text in usefor-03 says we HAVE signed up for RFC2822, since it says that. "as defined in ... with these limited exceptions" means "as defined in" with a few exceptions, none of which is a mandate for use in any kind of article, only mandates about what it contains when it is used. >Netnews departs from RFC 2822 in various ways, which we document. Yep. And one of those ways is no longer a mandatory References header in this nebulous "followup" thing. Undocumented "MUSTS" are not MUSTS. "Charles says..." is not RFC2119 justification. The side effect is now that THIS requirement is gone, there is no way of identifying what is and is not a followup no matter WHAT definition of followup may be used, so there is no reason to argue about what is and is not a followup anymore. If you think that not being able to identify what is a followup isn't important (i.e., it's ok for non-followups to contain References headers) then you cannot possibly think it is important enough to identify followups that the header designed for that purpose has to be mandatory. Be consistent -- either it's important or it isn't. Don't think that the mandate can be slipped back into USEPRO, since any mandate in USEPRO would contradict USEFOR, and that would look stupid. If USEFOR says it's optional, then USEPRO cannot claim that it is an interoperability issue and is thus not optional.