inn-2.0 - supposed error in 'parsecontrol' script.
rra at stanford.edu
Sat Sep 25 22:53:25 UTC 1999
greg andruk <meowing at banet.net> writes:
> In nnmh:inn-workers, Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu> writes:
>> Yup. I agree with the below patch for 2.2 STABLE. For 2.3, with the
>> controlchan rewrite, I think we should seriously consider no longer
>> supporting Subject: cmsg style control messages at all. I should go
>> check the usefor stuff and see if they're doing away with them.
> Unfortunately, it's a bit vague right now. "Subject: cmsg..." is
> outlawed for non-control messages, but it stops short of saying whether
> or not it can still serve as a substitute for a Control: header =( But
> that'll have to wait until sections 5 & 6 roll around.
FYI, the decision has been made to outlaw interpretation of a message
without a Control header but with a Subject starting with "cmsg " as a
control message in the next Usenet standard.
I personally think we should do the same in INN now, starting with 2.3.
I never see control messages without Control headers any more, and
wouldn't want to honor them even if I did.
> Speaking of standards, I'm tempted to disable version and sendsys, or at
> least rig them so that un-pgpverified doit doesn't work. (1036 requires
> them, usefor obsoletes them.) Senduuname is already gone because I
> couldn't find anything saying it had to be supported. Thoughts?
I don't see any point in sendsys either. version may as well stay, just
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
More information about the inn-workers