Xref: utzoo news.software.nntp:1414 news.software.b:8331
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!lib!sob
From: sob@lib.tmc.edu (Stan Barber)
Newsgroups: news.software.nntp,news.software.b
Subject: Re: NNTPD hates Message-IDs with TWO '@'s in them.
Message-ID: <5128@lib.tmc.edu>
Date: 19 Jun 91 06:24:42 GMT
References: <1991Jun17.191642.27639@zoo.toronto.edu> <6038@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> <1991Jun18.191531.10098@zoo.toronto.edu>
Followup-To: news.software.nntp
Organization: Texas Medical Center, Houston
Lines: 18

In article <1991Jun18.191531.10098@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>I plan to tighten up build's checking on site names and such, and fussier
>checking of message IDs will at least be considered.
Excellent. In the meantime, I have asked a group of NNTP managers to test
a fix for NNTP to cope with the problem. I hope that means that everyone
wins.
>This does mean that we occasionally have cause to revise our opinion of
>some feature, when it turns out that its lack causes problems.
Excellent. I am happy to see that you are willing to reexamine your opinions.
I frequently came away with a belief that you were unwilling to consider
the possibility of being incorrect on some issue.
>I would like to see a concise description of *exactly* what restrictions
>should be enforced, since full 822 parsing is ridiculously complex and
>expensive and appears to be overkill.  If it's just the absence of multiple
>@s, that ought to be feasible.
Perhaps this should be the subject of a revision of RFC1036 you proposed.
At the very least, only one @ should be allowed. How would you like to
proceed?