Subject: #1479 USEPRO 3.8: Whether moderators SHOULD retain message-ID

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:09:13 +0100

Charles Lindsey raised this back in February 2007, and it hasn't seen 
any comments.

The text in question is currently (as of -12):

   4.  Moderators are encouraged to retain the Message-ID header field
       if it is valid, and also retain the Date header field unless it
       appears to be stale (72 hours or more in the past) for reasons
       understood by the moderator (such as delays in the moderation
       process) in which case they MAY substitute the current date.  Any
       Injection-Date, Injection-Info, or Xref header fields already
       present MUST be removed.

Charles wanted a SHOULD for retaining message-ID. Nobody else commented.

If nobody else comments on the issue, I'll close it as "no support for a 
change".

                    Harald

---

From: Julien ÉLIE <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:29:35 +0100

Hi Harald,

>       appears to be stale (72 hours or more in the past)
>

I also reckon a SHOULD is better for the message-ID.  It would prevent duplicates
from being posted in case the same proto-article is posted twice (therefore sent
to the moderator with the same message-ID).  Useful for both auto-moderation bots
and manual moderation.

And they are encouraged to retain the Date: header (no need for a SHOULD here).

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« La différence entre un chanteur et une paire de chaussures est que le chanteur
  doit partir avant de lasser. La paire de chaussures, il vaut mieux les lacer
  avant de partir. » (Philippe Geluck)

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:58:57 GMT

>And they are encouraged to retain the Date: header (no need for a SHOULD here).

+1 (naturally)

But it is no huge deal, and no reason to hold up progress at this stage,
so I will live with either.

-- 
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

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:43:19 -0800

Julien ÉLIE <[email-masked]> writes:

> I also reckon a SHOULD is better for the message-ID.  It would prevent
> duplicates from being posted in case the same proto-article is posted
> twice (therefore sent to the moderator with the same message-ID).
> Useful for both auto-moderation bots and manual moderation.
>

To provide some additional history, the reason why the draft currently
says encouraged and not SHOULD is fallout from a global decision when I
proposed the alternate draft that became this one a while back, namely to
avoid any protocol requirements on moderators since, in practice, no
constraints are placed on what moderators can do.

Looking back on this several years later, I don't feel the passion for the
current position that I used to, so at this point I don't really care,
although I do think encouraged says all that's really necessary to say.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 11:19:12 +0100

> although I do think encouraged says all that's really necessary to say.
I'm willing to support the global position that moderators do what they 
want, so all we can do is encourage them. That would place this item 
into "no change needed".

                 Harald

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:39:17 GMT

>constraints are placed on what moderators can do.

Yes, that is a valid point. OTOH, the consequence of a moderator ignoring
our advice without good cause could be quite troublesome.

So I now think the most that is needed would be to reword it along the
following lines:

"Moderators are encouraged not to alter the Message-ID header field unless
it is invalid or the article has become significantly changed from its
original form; and are also encouraged to retain the Date ......".

Note additions of "to" before retain (which actually may have already been
fixed).

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:39:11 -0800

> Note additions of "to" before retain (which actually may have already been

I just committed a change along those lines.  Thanks!

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:53:30 GMT

>I just committed a change along those lines.  Thanks!

Thanks! I think that issue can now finally be closed.