Xref: utzoo news.admin:14893 news.software.b:8109 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b Subject: Re: Really funny jokes being missed Message-ID: Date: 3 Jun 91 15:17:58 GMT References: <1991May31.002356.10376@druid.uucp> Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. Lines: 54 darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes: > 1 - Anyone who posts to the net should make a reasonable effort > to get the headers right. [...] > 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. > I'll agree with all three of those statements. Where we differ is that I have a fourth statement: 4 - When something goes wrong, someone who can fix the problem should be told about it. If C News wishes to drop messages which are not RFC822 conformant then I'll agree to that, SO LONG AS it reports that it has dropped them. Contrariwise, if it is unable to send reports, then it must do its utmost not to drop articles. > Remember that the user is protected by > the posting software so buttinsky transport software is only > protecting bad posting software. No, it's telling the person who is using the bad posting software that there is something wrong with his software. If he isn't told, he won't know to fix it, and might carry on posting for months having his articles dropped silently. > 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. Me too. However I also believe that since we KNOW that there will always be imperfect software out there injecting articles into the news stream, it makes sense to have C News behave in a safe and helpful way when it encounters bad articles. It certainly doesn't make sense to have C News ASSUME that all posting software is perfect, since this assumption is demonstrably false. mathew