From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/6209 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Greg Stark Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch)) Date: 14 May 1996 23:15:27 -0400 Sender: gsstark@fierce-bad-rabbit.MIT.EDU Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035146698 2872 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:44:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:44:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Per Abrahamsen , 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 UAA06528 for ; Tue, 14 May 1996 20:43:12 -0700 Original-Received: from MIT.EDU (PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.28]) by ifi.uio.no with SMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 05:15:58 +0200 Original-Received: from FIERCE-BAD-RABBIT.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AB12659; Tue, 14 May 96 23:14:12 EDT Original-Received: by fierce-bad-rabbit.MIT.EDU (5.57/4.7) id AA06595; Tue, 14 May 96 23:15:28 -0400 X-Yow: Boys, you have ALL been selected to LEAVE th' PLANET in 15 minutes!! X-Spook: security supercomputer cracking ammunition NORAD Panama bomb Original-To: "Sudish Joseph" In-Reply-To: "Sudish Joseph"'s message of (unknown date) Original-Lines: 18 X-Mailer: September Gnus v0.83/Emacs 19.30 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6209 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6209 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