Re: Questions About Moderators and Spam

Steve de Mena <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter Lemken wrote:
Steve de Mena <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter Lemken wrote:

No, it does not. GG is a clunky webinterface that does not equal to a decent
provider offering NNTP. Plus, it violates usenet RfCs such as RfC1036.
How does Google Groups violate RFC 1036?

By mungling headers, i.e. castrating From: and Reply-To: and by not honoring
Followup-To: . Furthermore, it does not honor Control messages such as
cancel.

The headers look fine to me when I read them in Thunderbird (from
Giganews). RFC 1036 is "the standard format for the interchange of
network News messages among USENET hosts" and Google doesn't seem to
be violating any policies I see in that document.

They do, e.g. when cancel and supersedes are not honored and when
Followup-To does not work. In that sense the transport mechanism is broken
and thus in violation of RfC1036.

Also, implicitly RfC1036 expects a news client to be able to add headers
such as Reply-To:, Followup-To, Organization: etc. and GG does not conform
to this basic expectation.

While son of RfC 1036 is not in effect, its principles are used by news
providers and necessarily so, since RfC 1036 only deals with ASCII text and
does not consider new developments.

http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/outerspace/netnews/son-of-1036.html

RFC 1036 does not concern itself with the presentation of those
messages to the reader.

Unfortunately. This poses a lot of problems when non-ASCII comes into play
in replies and quotings.

That's just the technical side.

Which is what we were discussing.

That's why I tried to explain the question of header processing.

What's more annoying is its clunky
webinterface that mungles quoting, gives users the impression that
quotings are not relevant and that a newsgroup is hosted on a google server.
See one gentleman's remark that one should move this group to Yahoo.

Like it or not (and I don't) if the majority of Usenet users post/read
from Google, then they are the majority and can't be discounted.

If it makes usenet unreadable for the rest of the community this cannot be
discounted either and this is why I strongly oppose gg's decision to allow
posting ia their clunky interface. GG is a bad usenet citizen and violates
its own ethical code of doing no evil.

Peter Lemken
0711

--
Nature abhors crude hacks.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: block in open()
    ... RFC 1036 specifically indicates that Usenet uses a restricted subset ... a space" But RFC 1036 is no more a standard than USEFOR (it may be ... headers are allowed, and will be passed through unchanged" ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Re.Lots of cycles lots of lids
    ... RFC 1855 page 4, applied to newsgroups by section 3.0. ... As I've already stated, three people with many, many, years of USENET ... original text was set to 80 characters or over. ... But even quoting you to a single level the lines are above 80 chars. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: looking for hardware source
    ... In the early days of USENET, ... An RFC is not a rule. ... A REQUEST FOR COMMENT is not a set of guidelines or rules. ... can also go counter to your precious opinion of how things should be ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Interesting observation
    ... an RFC is a submission to ... at what they have to say about 'proper posting'. ... [From usenet primer FAQ] ...
    (alt.games.warcraft)
  • Re: Your Opinion Please: Pretentious Words & Phrases...
    ... Maybe this was just a slip, but we do like to avoid top-posting. ... guidelines to the Usenet. ... either he writes and promulgates a revised RFC, ...
    (alt.usage.english)
Loading