GNKSoA

GNKSoA

[Karl Kleinpaste]

I happened by Tim Pierce's archive of GNKSoA evaluations, noticing
that 5.3 failed GNKSoA by only one nit in the spec:

    Gnus fails the Good Netkeeping Seal of Approval on one rather minor
    count:
      * You can post an article with a "From" header containing a
        syntactically invalid e-mail address.  Although Gnus does check the
        syntax of the "From" header, its checks are not robust enough.  See
        note (1) for details.

I just looked into the current state of q0.12's From-checking in
message.el, around line 2301, and it seems relatively robust, though I
no longer have older Gnus versions around, against which to compare.

Is there any longer a reason why Gnus shouldn't finally and fully be
declared "GNKSoA compliant"?

Re: GNKSoA

[Hrvoje Niksic]

Karl Kleinpaste <karl@jprc.com> writes:

> I happened by Tim Pierce's archive of GNKSoA evaluations, noticing
> that 5.3 failed GNKSoA by only one nit in the spec:
> 
>     Gnus fails the Good Netkeeping Seal of Approval on one rather minor
>     count:
>       * You can post an article with a "From" header containing a
>         syntactically invalid e-mail address.  Although Gnus does check the
>         syntax of the "From" header, its checks are not robust enough.  See
>         note (1) for details.
> 
> I just looked into the current state of q0.12's From-checking in
> message.el, around line 2301, and it seems relatively robust, though I
> no longer have older Gnus versions around, against which to compare.

The same goes for Gnus 5.5.

> Is there any longer a reason why Gnus shouldn't finally and fully be
> declared "GNKSoA compliant"?

I don't think so.  The only reason now is the inertia of the
evaluator.

-- 
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Oh lord won't you buy me a color TV...

Re: GNKSoA

[Justin Sheehy]

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:

> Karl Kleinpaste <karl@jprc.com> writes:

> > Is there any longer a reason why Gnus shouldn't finally and fully be
> > declared "GNKSoA compliant"?
> 
> I don't think so.  The only reason now is the inertia of the
> evaluator.

I have sent an updated evaluation to Tim Pierce.

-- 
Justin Sheehy

In a cloud bones of steel.