emacs-pretest-bug
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: message.el user References control


From: Reiner Steib
Subject: Re: message.el user References control
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:40:24 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux)

On Thu, Jul 26 2007, address@hidden wrote:

>> Or are you saying that when the 21 limit is reached it incorrectly keeps the
>> oldest 21 rather than the most recent 21?  

Neither one is the case.  See below.

>> That would indeed be a plain bug.

> But that is what Lars said the RFC said the last time I brought this
> up. Which you can see somewhere in news://news.gnus.org/gnus.gnus-bug
> which is what http://gnus.org/resources.html says is the only way to
> see gnus bug reports.

ELISP> (message-shorten-references
         'References
         "<0> <1> <2> <3> <4> <5> <6> <7> <8> <9> <10> \
     <11> <12> <13> <14> <15> <16> <17> <18> <19> <20> \
     <21> <22> <23> <24> <25> <26> <27> <28> <29> <30> \
     <31> <32> <33> <34> <35> <36> <37> <38> <39> <40>")
nil
ELISP> References: <0> <21> <22> <23> <24> <25> <26> <27> <28> <29> <30> \
<31> <32> <33> <34> <35> <36> <37> <38> <39> <40>

> Better add a nil/t defvar so the user can override the order just in
> case Lars wasn't joking.
>
>> While 21 references is probably always overkill, 1 is not always enough,

,----[ http://www.landfield.com/usefor/drafts/gnksa-useage.txt ]
|               Comparison of GNKSA and USEAGE
|                      C. H. Lindsey
|                       5 June 2004
| 
| This document describes the differences between GNKSA
| <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/software/good-netkeeping-seal> and USEAGE
| <http://www.landfield.com/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-00.txt>,
| also with some references to USEFOR (draft-ietf-usefor-article-13.txt).
|
| [...]
|
| > The software MUST include at least three additional Message-IDs from
| > the original article's References header as well, if they are available.
| > Try to stay as close as possible to the spirit of "son-of-1036", which
| > states:
| > 
| >         <<Followup agents SHOULD not shorten References  headers.   If
| >           it  is absolutely necessary to shorten the header, as a des-
| >           perate last resort, a followup agent MAY do this by deleting
| >           some  of  the  message IDs.  However, it MUST not delete the
| >           first message ID, the last three message IDs (including that
| >           of  the immediate precursor), or any message ID mentioned in
| >           the body of the followup.>>
| 
| That requirement concerning Message-IDs in the body is no longer in
| USEFOR. It would be a pain to implement, and I doubt it ever was.
| 
| > 
| > However, it also says:
| > 
| >         <<If  it  is  absolutely  necessary  for  an implementation to
| >           impose a limit on the length of header lines, body lines, or
| >           header  logical  lines,  that  limit  shall be at least 1000
| >           octets, including EOL representations.>>
| 
| USEAGE has 20 rather then 3.
`----

20 + 1 = 21

> OK, make you a deal: 20, or OK, 25, anything, as long as you have a
> defvar so the user can override it -- allow him as big a beehive
> hairdo of references as he wants. Make 0 mean no references at all.
>
> I mean hardwiring any number without a defvar alternative should raise
> a red flag anyway.

Not if the hardwired number is recommended by the relevant standards.
I'm not convinced that we should have a defvar (or even a defconst for
this).

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]