From: daz <dooby@...10.karoo.co.uk>
Date: 2004-06-10T07:23:49+09:00
Subject: Re: Reply wasn't posted; will test new post


Thomas Fini Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 03:53:44AM +0900, daz wrote:
> > newsreader threading or something... and returns an NNTP error as if
> > it were an NNTP violation (which it isn't).
>
> Doesn't seem much different than a SMTP server returning an SMTP error
> when SpamAssassin fires off.

SMTP error or SMTP USER error ?
Does a SpamAssassin rejection get reported as a badly formatted message ?
BTW: I don't need to know.

>
> Indeed it's not stricktly a NNTP error, but they're rejecting posts
> that violate the USENET RFC, so why doen't we just make the messages
> meet the RFC?
>

THE MISSING MESSAGES DO *NOT* VIOLATE USENET RFC.

The *local* news host that we're using doesn't like them
and won't forward them to Usenet.

> > Could it have a bug which the authors might be grateful to know about?
>
> Perhaps it's a feature?
>

I think you're being contrary.
It /could/ be a feature, but it's not a very useful feature to us, is it?
There could be other services using that news host which are getting
their posts dumped and are not aware of it.

> And from your other mail:
>
> > My observation is that "news.zrz" also has an opinion on which
> > combinations of outbound headers are "correct" and that the
> > criteria for "correctness" are stricter than RFC850 for Usenet.
>
> No matter how many times I read RFC 850 section 2.1.6 (or RFC 1036 for
> that matter), I cannot see how this should be 'stricter' in any
> way. On the contrary, it's criteria seems to be compliance.
>

Our messages are already compliant !
"news.zrz" is stricter in that it insists on an RFC-optional header (References:).

> > My news host, for example, will accept the exact same
> > message that "news.zrz" rejects.  It appears on Usenet.
>
> That just proves that your news host has more lax requirements, not
> that the article is in fact valid.

What proves validity is that it arrived on Google.
What proof are _you_ looking for ??

> To pull the SMTP comparison again {...}

It's unhelpful.  We can talk about NNTP.

>
> Frankly, I can't see what the big fuzz is about, inject the damn
> References header, it's the right thing to do, whether one considers
> it 'klunky' or not.
>

That's been done.

> --
> Thomas
> beast@system-tnt.dk
>
>


If I'm wrong about this, I'm sure someone else will let me know.

daz