From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/12611
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: GNKSoA
Date: 14 Oct 1997 22:04:19 +0200
Message-ID: <kigafgcaz7g.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
References: <vxkk9fgur9t.fsf@pocari-sweat.jprc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035152116 4714 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 22:15:16 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:15:16 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <ding-request@ifi.uio.no>
Original-Received: from xemacs.org (xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu [128.174.252.16])
	by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA27408
	for <steve@altair.xemacs.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:31:19 -0700
Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA10826
	for <steve@xemacs.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:23:05 -0500 (CDT)
Original-Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <WAA05792@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:04:29 +0200
Original-Received: (from hniksic@localhost)
	by jagor.srce.hr (8.8.7/8.8.6) id WAA29779;
	Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:04:20 +0200 (MET DST)
Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no
X-Attribution: Hrvoje
X-Face: Mie8:rOV<\c/~z{s.X4A{!?vY7{drJ([U]0O=W/<W*SMo/Mv:58:*_y~ki>xDi&N7XG
        KV^$k0m3Oe/)'e%3=$PCR&3ITUXH,cK>]bci&<qQ>Ff%x_>1`T(+M2Gg/fgndU%k*ft
        [(7._6e0n-V%|%'[c|q:;}td$#INd+;?!-V=c8Pqf}3J
In-Reply-To: Karl Kleinpaste's message of "14 Oct 1997 14:35:26 -0400"
Original-Lines: 28
X-Mailer: Quassia Gnus v0.12/XEmacs 20.3(beta90) - "Dublin"
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:12611
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:12611

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...