From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/6214 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Sudish Joseph" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch)) Date: 15 May 1996 10:10:32 -0400 Sender: Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035146702 2900 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:45:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:45:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen , ding@ifi.uio.no Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA10601 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 08:16:50 -0700 Original-Received: from VNET.IBM.COM (vnet.ibm.com [199.171.26.4]) by ifi.uio.no with SMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 16:12:20 +0200 Original-Received: from ATLSER by VNET.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 4785; Wed, 15 May 96 10:12:09 EDT Original-Received: by ATLSER (XAGENTA 4.0) id 4756; Wed, 15 May 1996 10:11:47 -0400 Original-Received: (from sj@localhost) by galaxy.atlissc.ibm.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA00547; Wed, 15 May 1996 10:10:33 -0400 Original-To: Greg Stark In-Reply-To: Greg Stark's message of 15 May 1996 00:31:39 -0400 Original-Lines: 52 X-Mailer: September Gnus v0.78/Emacs 19.30 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6214 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6214 Greg Stark writes: > Do we really want to construct the new header as: > Subject: Re: Re[145]: re^4: ... > > It seems we're only making the problem worse, the header is now even > further from the structure intended by the RFCs. To some degree i I dunno. It seems to me that the header is finally fully compliant with So1036. Note that doing this isn't promoting further growth, any compliant reader following up to that article will leave it alone from this point. > standards, we would only make those authors claim, "well look what > happens when people strictly follow the standards; standards > restrict my ability to support cool new features and make stupid > headers like these." Which is precisely what standards are there for--to prevent people from adding cool new features that make interoperability an impossible task. Add features that are permitted by the standards. It's obvious that most new features will be in areas not covered by the standard; except where said features don't have anything to do with interoperability-- all the cool colors in GNUS are new features that don't hinder interoperability. MIME is a feature that affects interoperability, but it was added to an area not covered by the existing standards of the time and in a fashion that lets older UA's still interoperate with MIME-aware UA's. > And now, what if i write a hook to do my "manual" rewriting of the > Subject automatically, is that ok? What if Lars wrote it? What's the > difference? I don't think you can change the world by making life There's no difference between you writing it and Lars writing it, *for your personal use*. The moment you make it GNUS *default behaviour* or even something that is part of GNUS, you break our compliance with standards and some non-standards. Incidentally, neither RFC1036 nor So1036 is a standard (821/822 are, but not 1036)--if you're throwing out the Seal as a non-standard, why not do away with RFC1036 formatting of messages? :-) (Uh, that was a lame joke. Sure, 1036 isn't really a standard, but it's our last line of defense against Chaos and Other Bad Things.) > harder on other packages, you can make life easier by demonstrating > what headers are supposed to look like. Sure, as long as we're talking about headers not covered by standards. -Sudish