From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/12609
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Karl Kleinpaste <karl@jprc.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: GNKSoA
Date: 14 Oct 1997 14:35:26 -0400
Message-ID: <vxkk9fgur9t.fsf@pocari-sweat.jprc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035152114 4704 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 22:15:14 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:15:14 +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 MAA26502
	for <steve@altair.xemacs.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:47:52 -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 OAA06015
	for <steve@xemacs.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:39:20 -0500 (CDT)
Original-Received: from claymore.vcinet.com (claymore.vcinet.com [208.205.12.23]) by ifi.uio.no with SMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <UAA29091@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 20:36:16 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 3788 invoked by uid 504); 14 Oct 1997 18:36:05 -0000
Original-Received: (qmail 3785 invoked from network); 14 Oct 1997 18:36:04 -0000
Original-Received: from pocari-sweat.jprc.com (207.86.147.217)
  by claymore.vcinet.com with SMTP; 14 Oct 1997 18:36:04 -0000
Original-Received: (from karl@localhost)
	by pocari-sweat.jprc.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA18511;
	Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:35:26 -0400
Original-To: ding@gnus.org
X-Face: "5(T0tZd{6}pd~YzBG8O/*EW,.]6]@`m^e;fv65W^Y&=d"M\1H}>T~4_.kcDD.O~y3k)a6h
 R;Nmi>9|>Nm${2IpM0^RcUEa\jcq?KOP)C&~x51l~zCHTulL^_T|u0I^kB'z@]{`2YjQu
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:12609
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:12609

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"?