separating ruby-talk from comp.lang.ruby?

[Philipp Kern]

<extract>
2.2. Optional Headers
^^^^^^^^
2.2.5. References
[...] It is required for all follow-up messages, [...]
</extract>

I still don't think that the `References' header should be a problem,
no NNTP software I know declines mails on the base of a lacking references
header as it's truely optional (every new thread does not have any references).
Perhaps feeding the articles could help. I think currently they're submitted
via NNRP (the client<->server protocol).

Bye,
phil

 

[David A. Black]

Hi --

<extract>
2.2. Optional Headers
^^^^^^^^
2.2.5. References
[...] It is required for all follow-up messages, [...]
</extract>

I still don't think that the `References' header should be a problem,
no NNTP software I know declines mails on the base of a lacking references
header as it's truely optional (every new thread does not have any references).
Perhaps feeding the articles could help. I think currently they're submitted
via NNRP (the client<->server protocol).

But doesn't the above indicate that it's "required for all follow-up
messages"? The problems we've been having are just that: follow-up
messages (indicated either by an In-Reply-To: header or Re: in the
subject) which do not have a References: header.


David

 

[Philipp Kern]

But doesn't the above indicate that it's "required for all follow-up
messages"? The problems we've been having are just that: follow-up
messages (indicated either by an In-Reply-To: header or Re: in the
subject) which do not have a References: header.

Sorry. I thought I read that it's required on every message. So the newsserver
checks if a References header exists as soon as "Re:" is in the subject? That's
fine, otherwise Usenet threading would go crazy |:
You keep track of the thread anyway, right? So would it be possible to get some
references back in the thread?

Bye,
phil

 

[daz]

<extract>
2.2. Optional Headers
^^^^^^^^
2.2.5. References
[...] It is required for all follow-up messages, [...]
</extract>

I still don't think that the `References' header should be a problem,
no NNTP software I know declines mails on the base of a lacking references
header as it's truely optional (every new thread does not have any references).
Perhaps feeding the articles could help. I think currently they're submitted
via NNRP (the client<->server protocol).

But doesn't the above indicate that it's "required for all follow-up
messages"? The problems we've been having are just that: follow-up
messages (indicated either by an In-Reply-To: header or Re: in the
subject) which do not have a References: header.

I don't try to confuse :-(

Section 2.2. Optional Headers (Optional underlined)
then SUB-Section 2.2.5. References:

Yes, I see the word 'required' but my interpretation is matched
by most, if not all of Usenet's. It's *not* mandatory.
*Iff* you use this header, this is the official definition.

Bad RFC wording may be the reason that TU-Berlin's NNTP hosting
software is wrongly preventing valid messages going out to Usenet
or it may be deliberate because the group of which they are part
run a public service which needs to enforce the group's rules ??

IOW-1, my news service and others, probably make no checks on
headers at all; it only needs to check that I'm a subscriber,
then it injects my message into a Usenet server. They don't
care if it's malformed, junk isn't going to crash Usenet.
But *none* of _our_ messages are malformed.

IOW-2, any massaging of headers would be to make ML -> NG work on
TU-Berlin's machine -- *not* to make them "correct" news messages.


daz