Subject: Happy New Year To [email-masked]!

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:17:59 +0300

Happy New Year To You!
http://freshcards2008.com/

To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:24763
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Newsgroups
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:16:56 GMT
Lines: 24
Sender: [email-masked]

In <[email-masked]> "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]> writes:

>Charles Lindsey wrote:

>> It's a bit like "top posting". There is an RFC which deprecates
>> it.

>Really ?  I somehow missed it.  I'm aware of the rather old and
>in some details stupid "netiquette" RFC, and a nice RFC explaining
>how "flowed quoting" could work for everybody. 

RFC 1855 section 3.1.1.  Old maybe, but not stupid (though we might want
to rework it as part of USEAGE).

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

To: [email-masked]
From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: Newsgroups
Date:  Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:04:13 +0100
Organization:  <http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 18
Reply-To: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]

Charles Lindsey wrote:

> It's a bit like "top posting". There is an RFC which deprecates
> it.

Really ?  I somehow missed it.  I'm aware of the rather old and
in some details stupid "netiquette" RFC, and a nice RFC explaining
how "flowed quoting" could work for everybody. =20

For Newsgroups, if you have *something* as reference(s) you can
provisionally register it.  Worked like a charme for Archived-At,
(IOW all red tapes are already cut).  Admittedly it might help
if the "something" is an active draft, but it can be worse, e.g.
Errors-To is "provisionally deprecated":

http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/prov-headers.html=20

 Frank

To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:24761
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Newsgroups
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:18:53 GMT
Lines: 34
Sender: [email-masked]

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:

>>Whichever way we fix it, it is bound to upset someone, but not fixing it
>>at all will upset everyone.

>Not so. Our attempt at redefining existing usage will not be a fix, it 
>will be a fiasco. The only reasonable "fix" we could apply would be to 
>make it official: "a newsgroups header in email means nothing", since the 
>only problem is when someone thinks it does mean something, and it cannot
>mean two opposing things.

If people read that it "means nothing", then they will conclude "so I can
safely carry on putting what I have always put (whichever that was)". Which
will achieve nothing. Tne point of USEAGE is that it will describe "Best
Practice", rather than defining explicit syntax/semantics. The point of
defining "Best Practice" is that it thereby deprecates "Worst Practice".
There will be no overnight effect, but over time usage will migrate to the
"Best" version, because people will be able to use USEAGE to beat the
"wrong"doers over the head.

It's a bit like "top posting". There is an RFC which deprecates it. It
doesn't prevent it, but it enables people to flame top-posters, and the
result is that we get relatively little of 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: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:04:37 -0800 (PST)
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Newsgroups 
Sender: [email-masked]

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>Having both these practices in use at the same time produces total
>confusion.

Our attempt at defining the "right" meaning will not prevent that, since 
it is already happening. The only way there is confusion is if anyone 
thinks that "newsgroups" in email HAS a meaning. If they know it does not,
then there is no confusion at all.

>Jacob Palme raised this about 10 years ago, and was all for
>introducing an ID to deal with it.

I was working with him on that. I know all about it.

>We warned him off ...

> ... and what I propose to put in USEAGE is
>the way we agreed to fix it.

I don't recall agreeing to define a header directly contrary to existing 
usage. Nor do I recall any agreement with Jacob that "warned him off" by
proposing a fix that is directly contrary to existing usage. What I do 
recall is the draft we were working on died a natural death because we 
could not define it to mean something when two competing opposite 
definitions were already in existance -- and that was a decade ago, IIRC.

>Whichever way we fix it, it is bound to upset someone, but not fixing it
>at all will upset everyone.

Not so. Our attempt at redefining existing usage will not be a fix, it 
will be a fiasco. The only reasonable "fix" we could apply would be to 
make it official: "a newsgroups header in email means nothing", since the 
only problem is when someone thinks it does mean something, and it cannot
mean two opposing things.

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:46:13 -0800
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Newsgroups (was: Updated news-nntp-uri I-D)
Sender: [email-masked]

--On 11. desember 2007 15:42 -0800 [email-masked] wrote:

>
>
> "Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> I think we decided to make no normative mention of it, but to say in
>> USEAGE how it should be used sensibly to indicate that a message was both
>> posted and mailed, and not for anything else.
>
> If we did, we are wrong, since current practice does not define it that
> way.

I agree that we agreed not to mention it in USEFOR or USEPRO.
If there was any agreement on what it should say, I'll have to look through 
the archives to figure out what we agreed, and I'm not going to do that 
today.

           Harald

To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:24758
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Newsgroups (was: Updated news-nntp-uri I-D)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:17:03 GMT
Lines: 33
Sender: [email-masked]

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:

>"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>>I think we decided to make no normative mention of it, but to say in
>>USEAGE how it should be used sensibly to indicate that a message was both
>>posted and mailed, and not for anything else.

>If we did, we are wrong, since current practice does not define it that 
>way.

There is current practice that way and there is current practice for it to
be used in other ways (for emailed-only replies to news articles IIRC).

Having both these practices in use at the same time produces total
confusion. Jacob Palme raised this about 10 years ago, and was all for
introducing an ID to deal with it. We warned him off with the promise that
we would fix the matter in this WG, and what I propose to put in USEAGE is
the way we agreed to fix it.

Whichever way we fix it, it is bound to upset someone, but not fixing it
at all will upset everyone.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:42:24 -0800 (PST)
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Newsgroups (was: Updated news-nntp-uri I-D)
Sender: [email-masked]

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>I think we decided to make no normative mention of it, but to say in
>USEAGE how it should be used sensibly to indicate that a message was both
>posted and mailed, and not for anything else.

If we did, we are wrong, since current practice does not define it that 
way.