rick@seismo.UUCP (Rick Adams) (03/26/84)
Admittedly, there is probably only one program in the world that currently cares about the Posting-Version: header (My statistics generating program). For some time now, I have noticed that people have been changing the Posting-Version: line to reflect that they are running a locally modified version of news. I have no problem with that (I do it myself). However, the variations have now gotten so out of hand that it is not possible to parse the header on any regular basis. My interpretation of the format of the Posting-Version header (and the Relay-Version: header for that matter) is: Posting-version: any text MM/DD/YY; site sitename.DOMAIN Perhaps, the MM/DD/YY is technically part of the "any text". The standard does not say either way. It makes a lot more sense if it is a deliberate field. The ";" seperator definitely is mandatory. The worst offender/offenders are the sites generating: Posting-Version: notesfiles My program currently gives up when it sees a line of this type. (The second field is missing). This is clearly wrong and should be fixed. Many other sites do not follow my interpretation of the MM/DD/YY field and are confusing my program. If your site is generating one of the following headers, please take a moment to change it. Thanks. Rick Adams. notesfiles notesfiles - hp internal release 1.2 notesfiles - ucb internal release 1.0 version B 2.10 5/3/83 based version B 2.10 Apollo version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830713) version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830919) version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302) version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 SMI version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbopal-1.9 BSD 4.2 version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.5 For example, note that: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302) could be: version B 2.10.1 (MC840302) 6/24/83 with the same amount of information.