From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/37943 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ShengHuo ZHU Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: No bug, just a hint to GKNSA Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:14:59 -0700 Message-ID: <2nr8ua9vvg.fsf@piglet.jia.vnet> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035173606 18197 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 04:13:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:13:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cc@cli.de, bugs@gnus.org (The Gnus Bugfixing Girls + Boys) Return-Path: Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 8395 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2001 22:15:36 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO zsh.2y.net) (131.241.79.80) by gnus.org with SMTP; 17 Aug 2001 22:15:36 -0000 Original-Received: (from zsh@localhost) by zsh.2y.net (8.11.4/8.11.2) id f7HMExg02112; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:14:59 -0700 Original-To: Christoph Conrad Original-Cc: ding@gnus.org X-Attribution: ZSH X-Face: 'IF:e51ib'Qbl^(}l^&4-J`'P!@[4~O|&k#:@Gld#b/]oMq&`&FVY._3+b`mzp~Jeve~/#/ ERD!OTe<86UhyN=l`mrPY)M7_}`Ktt\K+58Z!hu7>qU,i.N7TotU[FYE(f1;}`g2xj!u*l`^&=Q!g{ *q|ddto|nkt"$r,K$[)"|6,elPH= GJ6Q Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: (Christoph Conrad's message of "Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:27:54 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.0.105 Original-Lines: 56 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:37943 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:37943 Christoph Conrad writes: > I would like to give a pointer to > > > > ,---- > | A few years ago, Ron Newman wrote a document intended to describe > | minimal standards for decent net-behaviour, in an effort to > | encourage newsreader authors to write better behaving newsreaders. > | Thus came the Good Net-Keeping Seal of Approval, GNKSA 1.2 in > | short, into being. > | > | Things changed rapidly, however: a vast army of new users stormed > | the Internet and Usenet, often using new generations of tools that > | displayed forms of bad behaviour unimagined before. This called > | for a serious effort to bring the GNKSA up to date; for that > | reason, I, Jeroen Scheerder, took the liberty to undertake the > | venture of revamping GNKSA. > | > | After I asked him, Ron kindly handed the GNKSA off to me. The > | result of all this: GNKSA 2.0. For brevity's sake I will omit > | version numbering whenever possible without causing confusion. > `---- > > Maybe it helps to lift Gnus to 100% fulfilling the criterias (if you > agree with them, of course...) > > Gnus 5.8 rated at 95% with failing two MUSTS. > > ,---- | Regarding the strict GNKSA requirements (MUSTs), Gnus 5.8 | FAILS on the following points: | | 11b Will not refuse to post articles without subject | 12b Fails to refuse to post messages with syntactically incorrect From: | | Gnus 5.8 violates `soft' GNKSA requirements (SHOULDs) | in the following way: | | 3c Fails to encourage setting a Followup-To on large crossposts | 7e Fails to omit `broken' Message-IDs. | 16b Does not refuse posting an empty article | 16d Does not refuse to post quoted text only | 16f Does not try to prevent posting multiple copies entirely `---- I don't think 11b, 12b, 3c, and 7e are issues in 5.8. At least in , they don't fail. And 16b, 16d and 16f have been fixed in oGnus. Thoughts? ShengHuo