[sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch)

[sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch)

[Steven L Baur]

Shouldn't the two regular expressions corrected here, also be extended
to match Re[2]: etc.?  There are apparently new mail programs
generating these kind of (broken) followup subjects.

Also, I'd like to not see the braindamaged ``-reply'', ever.
===================================================================
RCS file: RCS/ChangeLog,v
retrieving revision 1.86
diff -u -r1.86 ChangeLog
--- ChangeLog	1996/05/07 23:32:54	1.86
+++ ChangeLog	1996/05/09 18:13:10
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+Thu May  9 11:12:30 1996  Steven L Baur  <steve@miranova.com>
+
+	* message.el (message-followup): Correct typos in regular expression
+	matching ``Re:''.
+
 Tue May  7 21:49:30 1996  Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen  <larsi@ylfing.ifi.uio.no>
 
 	* gnus.el (gnus-summary-insert-subject): Would change article
===================================================================
RCS file: RCS/message.el,v
retrieving revision 1.21
diff -u -r1.21 message.el
--- message.el	1996/05/07 23:32:54	1.21
+++ message.el	1996/05/09 18:12:22
@@ -2117,7 +2117,7 @@
 	    message-id (mail-fetch-field "message-id"))
       ;; Remove any (buggy) Re:'s that are present and make a
       ;; proper one.
-      (when (string-match "^[ \t]*[Re][Ee]:[ \t]*" subject)
+      (when (string-match "^[ \t]*[Rr][Ee]:[ \t]*" subject)
 	(setq subject (substring subject (match-end 0))))
       (setq subject (concat "Re: " subject))
 
@@ -2219,7 +2219,7 @@
 	   (setq distribution nil))
       ;; Remove any (buggy) Re:'s that are present and make a
       ;; proper one.
-      (when (string-match "^[ \t]*[Re][Ee]:[ \t]*" subject)
+      (when (string-match "^[ \t]*[Rr][Ee]:[ \t]*" subject)
 	(setq subject (substring subject (match-end 0))))
       (setq subject (concat "Re: " subject))
       (widen))

-- 
steve@miranova.com baur
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread for $250/hour.
Andrea Seastrand: For your vote on the Telecom bill, I will vote for anyone
except you in November.

Re: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch)

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com> writes:

> Shouldn't the two regular expressions corrected here, also be extended
> to match Re[2]: etc.?  There are apparently new mail programs
> generating these kind of (broken) followup subjects.

The GNKSA doesn't allow rewriting Subject headers in that manner. 

> Also, I'd like to not see the braindamaged ``-reply'', ever.

When do you see that?

-- 
  "Yes.  The journey through the human heart 
     would have to wait until some other time."

Re: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch)

[Raja R Harinath]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com> writes:
> > Also, I'd like to not see the braindamaged ``-reply'', ever.
> 
> When do you see that?

Here's an example:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Xxxxxxxx <Xxxxxx@xxx.borland.com>
Subject:  Re: Enabler question -Reply
To: owl-list@netlab.cs.rpi.edu, xx@some.where, yy@some.where.else
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:22:33 -0800
X-From-Line: wiseb@netlab.cs.rpi.edu  Mon Nov 20 17:24:25 1995
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1
Sender: owner-owl-list@netlab.cs.rpi.edu
Precedence: bulk
Lines: 49

[snip]
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have the article this was replying to, so I don't know if the
culprit is "Novell Groupwise 4.1" or some other broken mailer.

BTW, the `owl-list' was the place I saw, in great variety and volume,
the broken monstrities of DOS/Windows mailers.  Gnus failed to keep
track on virtually all threads (did I get that right?  Gnus' thread
detection rules missed a large fraction of the articles.  Better :-)

- Hari
-- 
Raja R Harinath ------------------------------ harinath@cs.umn.edu
"When all else fails, read the instructions."      -- Cahn's Axiom
"Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing."   -- Roy L Ash

Re: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch)

[Steven L Baur]

>>>>> "Raja" == Raja R Harinath <harinath@cs.umn.edu> writes:

Raja> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>> Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com> writes:
>> > Also, I'd like to not see the braindamaged ``-reply'', ever.
>> 
>> When do you see that?

Raja> Here's an example:
 ...

Raja> I don't have the article this was replying to, so I don't know if the
Raja> culprit is "Novell Groupwise 4.1" or some other broken mailer.

Oh, Novell Groupwise 4.1 is the culprit all right.  I really *like*
the X-Mailer header.

Novell Groupwise is so lame it readily stacks the -Reply tag as well:

X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1
Subject:  Re: [ hwg-main ] Web site -Reply -Reply


If this Subject: were instead:
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re^3: [hwg-main] Web site -Reply -Reply -Reply

What would the harm be in Gnus rewriting the header as:
Subject: Re: [hwg-main] Web site

on followup?  Think of it as a bit of unpaid janitorial work to clean
the internet up after bad software ... :-)

I suppose one could always write a message-header-setup-hook or a
message-header-hook to do this.

Regards,
-- 
steve@miranova.com baur
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread for $250/hour.
Andrea Seastrand: For your vote on the Telecom bill, I will vote for anyone
except you in November.

Re: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch)

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com> writes:

> If this Subject: were instead:
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re^3: [hwg-main] Web site -Reply -Reply -Reply
> 
> What would the harm be in Gnus rewriting the header as:
> Subject: Re: [hwg-main] Web site

That would violate the GNKSA.  Even if that were not the case,
rewriting subject headers will break threading (and stuff) on some
newsreaders.  For instance, I think tin (which is unthreaded) will be
confused by rewriting.  (It will break the thread into two "threads".)

-- 
  "Yes.  The journey through the human heart 
     would have to wait until some other time."

Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch))

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

>>>>> "LMI" == Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes:

LMI> Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com> writes:
>> If this Subject: were instead: Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re^3: [hwg-main] Web
>> site -Reply -Reply -Reply
>> 
>> What would the harm be in Gnus rewriting the header as: Subject: Re:
>> [hwg-main] Web site

LMI> That would violate the GNKSA.  Even if that were not the case,
LMI> rewriting subject headers will break threading (and stuff) on some
LMI> newsreaders.

I will always rewrite the subject of a message to be both pertinent and
devoid of Re: RE^8: Re[356]: -Reply garbage.  If there are newsreaders that
can't understand it then tough.  The subject line is for humans.  A
newsreader should be looking at References: (or In-reply-To: which we don't
seem to set).  IMHO, of course.

 - J<

Re: Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch))

[Per Abrahamsen]

>>>>> "JLT" == Jason L Tibbitts <tibbs@hpc.uh.edu> writes:

JLT> The subject line is for humans.

This is a pretty good reason for the newsreader to leave it alone. 

Re: Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch))

[Richard Pieri]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "PA" == Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:
>>>>> "JLT" == Jason L Tibbitts <tibbs@hpc.uh.edu> writes:

JLT> The subject line is for humans.
PA> This is a pretty good reason for the newsreader to leave it alone. 

Or a pretty good reason to massage it into something that a human can
more easilly parse.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBMZiZkZ6VRH7BJMxHAQFbRwP+JX7BdQrr2VG97vfc/OuEXFMp60OJ0YCr
AYABjii5ztpteZ5DC9n2hm+1pNMCpqRi4+dbjBB0+EEfV0vTRxAZPBAekXcvKkJv
0hO08p9VVpVFiK5gCAHpQ9sF0rLrJnXt4VXkEsC99BtrbsRiMIZo3Uv8OHpfm76t
+d80rE6Kd2w=
=M38L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
Richard Pieri/Information Services \ Variety is the spice of life: one day
<ratinox@unilab.dfci.harvard.edu>   \ ignore people, the next day annoy
http://www.dfci.harvard.edu/         \ them. -A cat's guide to life

Re: Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch))

[Per Abrahamsen]

>>>>> "JLT" == Jason L Tibbitts <tibbs@hpc.uh.edu> writes:

JLT> The subject line is for humans.

>>>>> "PA" == Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:

PA> This is a pretty good reason for the newsreader to leave it alone. 

>>>>> "RP" == Richard Pieri <ratinox@unilab.dfci.harvard.edu> writes:

RP> Or a pretty good reason to massage it into something that a human can
RP> more easilly parse.

Well, that is what nn tried to do with Re^4: and Lotus try to do with
the "- Reply" string.

I'd say massage the subject as much as you want for presentation
purposes in the article and subject buffers, but when you generate a
reply or followup, make the default subject line be in strict
compliance with The Seal and with Son-of-RFC1036.

Re: Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch))

[Richard Pieri]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "PA" == Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:

RP> Or a pretty good reason to massage it into something that a human
RP> can more easilly parse.
PA> Well, that is what nn tried to do with Re^4: and Lotus try to do
PA> with the "- Reply" string.

Just because something has been done poorly is not reason to not do it
right somewhere else.

PA> I'd say massage the subject as much as you want for presentation
PA> purposes in the article and subject buffers, but when you generate a
PA> reply or followup, make the default subject line be in strict
PA> compliance with The Seal and with Son-of-RFC1036.

You need to be careful, here.  For example, is scoring/killing done on
the real header contents, or on the massaged version?  And if the
former, how to make that apparant in the crossover?  But otherwise this
is quite workable; I am all for it.  In fact, much of the code to do
this already exists in gnus-simplify-subject-fuzzy and the -regexp
variable.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBMZjCpp6VRH7BJMxHAQEdOgQArBL05NJ8rqnxBCJr0xFe9qWwgRexbdKI
uDblRNdUs58yHl0xdWLYCKLzmnIQxaIdbkoNouhE2APLpKSLn4QuSUnET7qtGyRo
Y1GbK9PVCwgaecHx1zzBCwjdoJ1LbDQ5vFKZDdhJijnf7M9ZTFDQr7ivtJZjETfu
Uwan18Yt1VM=
=R8wj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
Richard Pieri/Information Services \ If you're not receiving enough attention,
<ratinox@unilab.dfci.harvard.edu>   \ try knocking over some very expensive
http://www.dfci.harvard.edu/         \ antique lamps. -A cat's guide to life

Re: Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch))

[Sudish Joseph]

Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:
> I'd say massage the subject as much as you want for presentation
> purposes in the article and subject buffers, but when you generate a
> reply or followup, make the default subject line be in strict
> compliance with The Seal and with Son-of-RFC1036.

Amen.

-Sudish "not sure if I'm entitled to vote in this (non-?)election" Joseph

Re: Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch))

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

"Sudish Joseph" <sudish@VNET.IBM.COM> writes:

> Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:
> > I'd say massage the subject as much as you want for presentation
> > purposes in the article and subject buffers, but when you generate a
> > reply or followup, make the default subject line be in strict
> > compliance with The Seal and with Son-of-RFC1036.
> 
> Amen.

Indeedy.  Just because we feel it's totally neat-o-keano to rewrite
"Re[145]: re^4: WORD TOTALLY RO=?ISO-X-666?ABNSAGHS?=OOLZ!!!!!!!!! -reply" 
to "Re: Word totally sucks!", that doesn't mean that everybody will
agree.  By sticking totally to The Seal and RFC1036 we give those
standards greater legitimacy and have a greater chance of getting
writers of non-compliant software to get their acts together.  They
will then not be able to say "Oh, but that thing also rewrites Subject
headers, so we can do to."  No.  We comply with the standards.

If users decide to rewrite Subject headers manually -- that's up to
them.  

-- 
  "Yes.  The journey through the human heart 
     would have to wait until some other time."

Re: Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch))

[Greg Stark]

I would like to make a comment that the Seal has far less force here than any
RFC or even sons of RFCs or intents of RFCs.  The Seal is just some guys
attempt to collect a checklist of correct behaviours in one place.  There is
room for disagreement with his ideas, especially if you understand the RFCs
and their intents.

On the other hand many violations of the Seal are by people who definitely
think they more than everyone else and don't understand the reasons the
behaviours specified in the Seal are considered correct. I don't think this is
really such a case. The Gnus author understands the RFC and its intent clearly
and understands the implications of the decision.

I think restoring the style of Subject headers the RFCs require rather than
constructing increasingly bizarre headers in the interest of following some
arbitrary formulation of a rule intended to avoid such headers is better.

greg

Re: Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch))

[Greg Stark]

Well the question is, given that i am replying to a message with
Subject: Re[145]: re^4: WORD TOTALLY RO=?ISO-X-666?ABNSAGHS?=OOLZ!!!!!!!!! -reply

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 sympathize with
Lars' argument about strengthening the standards, but unless you expect those
packages to actually go away rather than spread it doesn't matter.  I expect
rather than strengthen the 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."

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 harder on other
packages, you can make life easier by demonstrating what headers are supposed
to look like.


Greg

Re: Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch))

[Sudish Joseph]

Greg Stark <gsstark@MIT.EDU> 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

Re: Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch))

[Edward J. Sabol]

Excerpts from mail: (15-May-96) Re: Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch)) by Sudish Joseph

Greg Stark <gsstark@MIT.EDU> writes:
>> 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?

Sudish Joseph <sudish@VNET.IBM.COM> writes:
> 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.

I agree and disagree. Yes, I don't think it should be the default behavior;
however, I vote that Lars add such function as described earlier in this
thread to the message.el package, and if users want to add this function to
the message-setup-hook (or whatever the relevant hook is), then they can
easily do so. The presence of such a function in the code does not inherently
indicate a violation of or a break in compliance with any "standard," as long
as the default behavior is compliance.

Later,
Ed

Re: Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch))

[Steven L Baur]

>>>>> "Lars" == Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes:

Lars> "Sudish Joseph" <sudish@VNET.IBM.COM> writes:
>> Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:
>> > I'd say massage the subject as much as you want for presentation
>> > purposes in the article and subject buffers, but when you generate a
>> > reply or followup, make the default subject line be in strict
>> > compliance with The Seal and with Son-of-RFC1036.
>> 
>> Amen.

Lars> Indeedy.  Just because we feel it's totally neat-o-keano to rewrite
Lars> "Re[145]: re^4: WORD TOTALLY RO=?ISO-X-666?ABNSAGHS?=OOLZ!!!!!!!!! -reply" 
Lars> to "Re: Word totally sucks!", that doesn't mean that everybody will
Lars> agree.

That's more rewriting than I really had in mind:

Subject: Re: WORD TOTALLY RO=?ISO-X-666?ABNSAGHS?=OOLZ!!!!!!!!!
X-Original-Subject: Re[145]: re^4: WORD TOTALLY RO=?ISO-X-666?ABNSAGHS?=OOLZ!!!!!!!!! -reply
X-Gnus-GNKSA-Warning: You've got a bogus mailer, dude.  Fix it!

Lars> By sticking totally to The Seal and RFC1036 we give those
Lars> standards greater legitimacy and have a greater chance of
Lars> getting writers of non-compliant software to get their acts
Lars> together.  They will then not be able to say "Oh, but that thing
Lars> also rewrites Subject headers, so we can do to."  No.  We comply
Lars> with the standards.

Lars> If users decide to rewrite Subject headers manually -- that's up to
Lars> them.  

At some point we're going to need an adjunct to Gnus with
user-contributed neat-o-keano, but unofficial software.

-- 
steve@miranova.com baur
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread for $250/hour.
Andrea Seastrand: For your vote on the Telecom bill, I will vote for anyone
except you in November.