Xref: utzoo news.admin:14807 news.software.b:8072
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!lethe!druid!darcy
From: darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Subject: Re: Really funny jokes being missed
Message-ID: <1991May31.002356.10376@druid.uucp>
Organization: D'Arcy Cain Consulting, West Hill, Ontario
References: <10623@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1991May29.221015.1865@druid.uucp> <10674@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 May 91 00:23:56 GMT

In article <10674@castle.ed.ac.uk> Paul Crowley writes:
>In article <1991May29.221015.1865@druid.uucp> darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
>>So, the $64K question:  Who or what should take responsibility for
>I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear in my original post.  This isn't
>the $64k question at all, and the answer to your strawman question is
>obviously B.  The $64k question is:  Who or what should behave sensibly
>when it sees an incorrect header?
>>   A) The novice poster that probably hasn't even heard of an RFC.
>>   B) The software that injects the message into the net.
>>   C) The software that transports the message around the world.
>And the correct answer is:
>A.  B.  C.

I'll buy that.  However I suspect we disagree on what the sensible
thing for transport software to do is.  You seem to think it should
start a flood of reports back to the originator.  I think that CNews
does the sensible thing and drops them.

So let me prop up my straw man a little more.  (Ahh, if I only had
a brain ...)

   1 - Anyone who posts to the net should make a reasonable effort
       to get the headers right.  The newsgroup line should reflect
       the subject matter as should the subject.  If a thread is
       getting old perhaps trim the references line.  Make the
       follow-up line and the distribution reasonable.  The poster
       should try to get the format of the lines right but they
       shouldn't be the last defense on this point.

   2 - The posting software should not try to decide whether the
       subject reflects the content or whether the cross-posting
       is relevant.  It should however make sure that every header
       line follows the RFCs.  If not it should at least notify
       the user immediately that there is a problem.  It might
       also try to correct the situation with or without the
       user's help depending on the nature of the problem.

   3 - The transport software should move news through a variety
       of networks.  To do this efficiently it should act on
       a well defined set of rules.  Messages that fail to
       conform to these rules should not be passed.

Now I really doubt that many people will have any substantial
argument with #1.  So who disagrees with #2.  (Don't post if
you agree.  Of course you do.  You'll just flood the newsgroup.)
Now if you disagree with #2 and agree with #1 then you are
inexorably drawn to the conclusion that #3 is wrong and that the
news transport software should be fixing the user's mistakes.  I
doubt you can be convinced otherwise.

So if you agree with #1 and #2 and disagree with #3, on what
basis do you do so?  Remember that the user is protected by
the posting software so buttinsky transport software is only
protecting bad posting software.  I happen to believe that
if you are writing software that injects news into the news
system than the onus is on you to follow the standards and
not to expect Henry and Geoff to conform to yours.

Go ahead.  I still have an I, II and III waiting in the wings.  :-)

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid)     |
D'Arcy Cain Consulting             |   There's no government
Toronto, Ontario, Canada           |   like no government!
+1 416 424 2871                    |