Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!wotan!moxie!sugar!nuchat!buster!rli
From: rli@buster.stafford.tx.us (Buster Irby)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: CNews - now a pedantic software! : -(
Message-ID: <1991Apr01.132449.29232@buster.stafford.tx.us>
Date: 1 Apr 91 13:24:49 GMT
References: <3NIP9ZB@methan.chemie.fu-berlin.de> <1991Mar30.194515.12750@looking.on.ca>
Reply-To: rli@buster.stafford.tx.us
Organization: Buster irby
Lines: 27

brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:

>It's a tough decision, but one I would have to stand by.  If something
>is a valid part of the standard, and there's no debate that it's a mistake,
>and no claim that the variation is a proposed extension to the standard,
>then the article should be bounced.

I disagree.  Who is going to learn a lesson by bouncing an
article.  Certainly not the author, since his news system allowed
him to post it.  If He receives no feedback from his news system
he will believe that there is nothing wrong with the article.  In
fact, what this is going to cause is an increase in the number of
articles posted saying "This is a test to see if my articles are
getting out".

I believe that during a transitional period (say 6-12 months or
so), the software should be willing to accept anything that is
reasonable from outside sources but should not be willing to post
local articles which do not conform.  This would give immediate
(local) feedback to the offenders by not posting their articles,
while not depriving the net readers of articles which are
slightly out of spec.

Finally, I would like to support a statement made by Peter da
Silva the other day:

>"Be liberal about what you receive, conservative about what you generate"