checkincludedtext behavior

[Jeffrey M. Vinocur]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, definitely what wrote:

> Russ Allbery writes:
>   Jeffrey M Vinocur <jeff at litech.org> writes:
>   > Or do we want to declare that anybody who wants to fiddle with this
>   > should just disable it and use a posting filter?
>   I'm leaning a bit towards the latter, but I don't have a very strong
>   opinion.  I've always considered the included text check to be pretty
>   worthless, so I'm probably the wrong person to be deciding; I'd be
>   interested to hear from someone who actually uses it.

Right, Alex's point about removing it entirely crossed my mind as well.

The only issue here is that we don't require building with Perl filter 
support, and it seems like many people don't (for reasons I don't know).  
Are we comfortable moving what has traditionally been core functionality 
into a Perl filter?


> I've always liked it, but if you could get it to prevent people from
> top-posting, that would be super-cool.

That's definitely something you should be doing in a (Perl) posting 
filter, IMO.


Russ also wrote:
>    The other variable that people want to tweak from time to time is the
>    set of characters that are considered quote characters.  My intuition
>    is that in order to really be generally applicable the code would
>    need more degrees of freedom than its importance warrants putting
>    into inn.conf and the documentation and making everyone look at.

That's a good point.  It definitely feels like a posting filter kind of 
thing.  It's something many people might want to customize, doesn't 
require compiled-code speed, etc.

The only thing I can think of here is that one might want to configure 
that sort of filter based on readers.conf with more granularity than 
perlfilter: yes/no.  Perhaps we should make a way for some sort of 
information to trickle down from readers.conf to the posting filter?  (Or 
is that already possible and I don't know about it.)

-- 
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
jeff at litech.org