= Сообщение: 10340 из 12492 ===================================== ENET.SYSOP = От : Alexey Vissarionov 2:5020/545 15 Feb 21 04:40:04 Кому : Michiel van der Vlist 15 Feb 21 04:40:04 Тема : Ping FGHI : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:5020/545+6029d240 На : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:280/5555+6029b25e = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP866 ================================== Ответ: area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:280/5555+602a5b69 ============================================================================== Good ${greeting_time}, Michiel!
15 Feb 2021 00:16:38, you wrote to me:
MvdV>>> 1) I am not a lemming, I do not just follow for the sake of MvdV>>> following. Not even the "two steps before becoming the MvdV>>> reference implementation". AV>> The author of PoC had some really good reasons to do that, n'est pas? MvdV> I don't know who the author of PoC is and so I do not know his|her MvdV> reasons. Nor do I know if these reasons are good or bad...
You can find that in FTSC archives... (TLDR: me).
MvdV>>> 2) It violates my principle of "pass 'as is', unless there is a MvdV>>> clear technical reason for not doing so". AV>> Reply != pass MvdV> Semantics.
Reply is a new message with its own technical fields.
MvdV>>> So far I have seen no clear technical reason for invalidating MvdV>>> tear lines and origin lines in a PING respons. Origin lines do MvdV>>> not belong in netmail anyway, so that would be a case of GiGo. MvdV>>> So.. can you give me a clear technical reason? "PoC does it", MvdV>>> is not a valid clear technical reason. AV>> The robot does pass all original messages "as is". But when it AV>> generates _new_ _message_ with the reply, it _must_ (as in FTA-1006) AV>> make sure nothing would affect further processing of that message. MvdV> What "further processing" is there to be done on a reply from a MvdV> PING robot? It is meant to be read by a human and that is it.
Mail routing.
AV>> Quoting the original message back (as in FSC-0032) could be a good AV>> solution. However, the FSC-0032 explicitly states: "Kludge lines, AV>> including tear lines and origins lines are not normally quoted, but AV>> when they are - they must never be quoted exactly - this definitely AV>> causes problems with other software!" MvdV> 1) What "other software"? PING replys are meant to be read by a MvdV> human.
Or some other robot. You never know...
MvdV> 2) FSCs are proposals that for one reason or another never made it MvdV> into a standard. So they are not binding or authoritive in any way. MvdV> 3) FSC-0032 is about echomail, PING is about netmail. MvdV> I still see no clear technical reason why PING robots should MvdV> invalidate tear lines or origin lines.
Because they don't belong to a message sent back by a robot. It can either invalidate or delete them, but leaving them as they come in the request is a very unwise idea.
-- Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin gremlin.ru!gremlin; +vii-cmiii-ccxxix-lxxix-xlii
