* GNKSoA
@ 1997-10-14 18:35 Karl Kleinpaste
1997-10-14 20:04 ` GNKSoA Hrvoje Niksic
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Karl Kleinpaste @ 1997-10-14 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
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"?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: GNKSoA
1997-10-14 18:35 GNKSoA Karl Kleinpaste
@ 1997-10-14 20:04 ` Hrvoje Niksic
1997-10-23 22:20 ` GNKSoA Justin Sheehy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Hrvoje Niksic @ 1997-10-14 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
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...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: GNKSoA
1997-10-14 20:04 ` GNKSoA Hrvoje Niksic
@ 1997-10-23 22:20 ` Justin Sheehy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Justin Sheehy @ 1997-10-23 22:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1997-10-23 22:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1997-10-14 18:35 GNKSoA Karl Kleinpaste
1997-10-14 20:04 ` GNKSoA Hrvoje Niksic
1997-10-23 22:20 ` GNKSoA Justin Sheehy
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).