From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/10039
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Checking `Reply-To'
Date: 01 Mar 1997 00:34:45 +0100
Sender: larsi@proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no
Message-ID: <m2d8tkwlm2.fsf@proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no>
References: <kig7mk11rrk.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035149971 21994 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:39:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:39:31 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <ding-request@ifi.uio.no>
Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2])
	by deanna.miranova.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA06358
	for <steve@miranova.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:06:12 -0800
Original-Received: from proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no (root@ppp14.larris.ifi.uio.no [129.240.68.114]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <BAA19848@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 01:48:46 +0100
Original-Received: (from larsi@localhost) by proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no (8.8.2/8.8.2) id AAA21127; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 00:34:54 +0100
Mail-Copies-To: never
Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no
In-Reply-To: Hrvoje Niksic's message of 22 Feb 1997 03:47:11 +0100
Original-Lines: 23
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.16/Emacs 19.34
X-Face: &w!^oO<W.WBH]FsTP:P0f9X6M-ygaADlA_)eF$<UwQzj7:C=Gi<a?/_4$LX^@$Qq7-O&XHp
 lDARi8e8iT<(A$LWAZD*xjk^')/wI5nG;1cNB>~dS|}-P0~ge{$c!h\<y
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:10039
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:10039

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:

> I've just read the GNKSA review of RadicalNews, and have seen that the
> reviewer seems to require that the `Reply-To' header should be checked
> the same way as `From'.

That review was the strongest blow to the authority of GNKSA I've seen
so far.  The reviewer wibbled on and on about how much he didn't like
the user interface and what features he wished that it had -- which is
*totally* irrelevant when it comes to minimal Usenet compliance, which
is what the GNKSA was set up to do something about.

> Regardless of GNKSA, I think Gnus should perform the same checks for
> `Reply-To' as it does for `From'.  What do you think?

Well, people shouldn't include Reply-To headers unless they need to,
and if they need to, they probably know what they are doing.

The GNKSA does not require syntax checking of that header, I think.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@ifi.uio.no * Lars Ingebrigtsen