From: Thomas Fini Hansen <beast@...>
Date: 2004-06-07T16:44:45+09:00
Subject: Re: Reply wasn't posted; will test new post

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:53:40AM +0900, daz wrote:
> > > and
> > >   RFC850: Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages
> > >
> > >   "... the rule is adopted that all  USENET  news  articles
> > >     must  be formatted as valid ARPANET mail messages,
> > >     according to the ARPANET standard RFC 822."
> > >
> > > Our missing ML-> NG messages, after conversion from mail to news by rubygate,
> > > are valid to RFC822/RFC850 standard regardless of the MUA used for posting.
> >
> > That's reverse logic, it only claims that all news messages is valid
> > mails, not that all mail is valid news.
> 
> The claim that ruby-talk mail is converted by rubygate to RFC850 news
> comes from me, supported by my (and others') empirical evidence.


OK, now you lost me. This whole subthread started out at someone
claiming that mails forwarded by rubygate got rejected because of
missing References headers (because they're not following RFC850).

So it's pretty clear (to me at least), that in order for your claim to
be true, rubygate must insert References headers on mails with a 
'Re: ' subject which are missing it. Whether it's actually doing that
now, sorta got lost in the noise.

-- 
Thomas
beast@system-tnt.dk