I've finally snapped
in [UK Linux]
|
From: Chris Davies on 8 Sep 2008 07:53 Sheridan Hutchinson <Sheridan(a)shezza.org> wrote: > What you quoted is actually in the headers, and my post is completely > RFC compliant for usenet. Citation, please? RFC1036 makes no mention of MIME headers, not even in its section discussing optional headers. > The trouble here is that the version of slrn > you're using is so old that it thinks aspects of my mime headers are > part of the post because it doesn't process them properly. Not so. My newsreader recognises the mime headers and tries to post them. But since discussion-based usenet newsgroups are generally supposed to be plain text it gets very wearing each time I get a "Use a mime helper" request on your posts. Chris
From: Sheridan Hutchinson on 8 Sep 2008 09:20 Chris Davies wrote: > RFC1036 makes no mention of MIME headers, not even in its section > discussing optional headers. RFC 1036 is a nice vintage paper from 1987 and indeed there is no provision for MIME headers in that RFC. RFC 3156 from 2001 and my posts are absolutely technically correct in respect of compliance with that RFC. I recognise that not all newsreaders handle such posts in an elegant way, or in a way that isn't wearing. While it is not my aim to disrupt anyone's Usenet viewing pleasure, in the same respect I don't wish to post to Usenet without signing my posts however on this occasion I won't so that you can view this message with ease. Maybe the easiest thing would be for you to killfile my email address to save any future aggravation that my signed posts may cause you. That an the fact that I'm not a very prolific poster means that you probably won't miss much. -- Regards, Sheridan Hutchinson Sheridan(a)Shezza.org
From: Sheridan Hutchinson on 8 Sep 2008 10:09 Paul Martin wrote: > Where does it say that you can use RFC3156 *or* MIME encoding in > Usenet? To my best knowledge there is no RFC or other source specifically 'allowing' or 'denying' the application of RFC3156 or MIME encoding in Usenet posts. To the best of my knowledge posting RFC3156 compliant messages doesn't violate the charter of this newsgroup either. Part of the beauty of RFC3156 means that it moved PGP signed messages out of the body of the message, regardless of what transport it took, and in to the headers. I remember for years people complaining about seeing PGP signed messages in the open on Usenet and it was ugly, and in my opinion they had good reason to complain. Now we have a viable solution and people are still grumbling and principally I think that the only reason is because some newsreaders haven't made it comfortable for their users yet. If some newsreaders were more comfortable in this respect that MIME posts didn't bother anyone, we wouldn't be pulling out the Usenet blueprints, we'd just accept the progress. We could all fall back to pulling out 21 year old RFC's and pointing out what they *don't* mention, however that in my view isn't progress. I'm sure there could be some kind of harmony between Useneter's and PGP using Useneter's, maybe we could spend our energy working on that instead. -- Regards, Sheridan Hutchinson Sheridan(a)Shezza.org
From: Peter J Ross on 8 Sep 2008 10:46 In uk.comp.os.linux on Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:09:05 +0100, Sheridan Hutchinson <Sheridan(a)Shezza.org> wrote: > I'm sure there could be some kind of harmony between Useneter's and > PGP using Useneter's, maybe we could spend our energy working on > that instead. slrn users may be interested in the "minimal multipart" patch: <http://foory.de/thw/slrn/> It hides PGP/MIME message parts and other "annoyances". It's quite likely that full support for multipart/signed messages will find its way into slrn before version 1.0. -- PJR :-) slrn newsreader (v0.9.9): http://slrn.sourceforge.net/ extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/ newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
From: jasee on 8 Sep 2008 14:00
"Sheridan Hutchinson" <Sheridan(a)Shezza.org> wrote in message news:VvadnZxUB408u1jVnZ2dnUVZ8sjinZ2d(a)pipex.net... > Chris Davies wrote: >> RFC1036 makes no mention of MIME headers, not even in its section >> discussing optional headers. > > RFC 1036 is a nice vintage paper from 1987 and indeed there is no > provision for MIME headers in that RFC. > > RFC 3156 from 2001 and my posts are absolutely technically correct in > respect of compliance with that RFC. > > I recognise that not all newsreaders handle such posts in an elegant > way, or in a way that isn't wearing. While it is not my aim to disrupt > anyone's Usenet viewing pleasure, in the same respect I don't wish to > post to Usenet without signing my posts however on this occasion I won't > so that you can view this message with ease. > > Maybe the easiest thing would be for you to killfile my email address to > save any future aggravation that my signed posts may cause you. That an > the fact that I'm not a very prolific poster means that you probably > won't miss much. I assumed it was an anti-microsoft thing. Quite a few people used to do it some time ago |