tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (09/13/89)
While y'all are in the mood to patch B news -- the following is an
UNOFFICIAL patch which has been shown to, but not approved by, some
kindly net.folks in the past week, and which seems to work on the
three sites I've installed it on.
It watches for incoming articles whose Subject: lines are of the
form Re^.* and translates them to Re: before storing or re-queueing.
The effect is to correct NN's rude behavior without inundating people
with email or unnecessarily junking articles.
The behavior is controlled via an additional preprocessor flag, ZAPNNRE.
--- cut here --- cut here --- cut here --- cut here --- cut here ---
*** defs.dist.old Thu Sep 7 08:56:14 1989
--- defs.dist Thu Sep 7 08:57:07 1989
***************
*** 62,67 ****
--- 62,68 ----
#define V7MAIL /* Local mail format is V7 ("From ") */
#define SORTACTIVE /* if you want news presented in the order of the .newsrc */
#define ZAPNOTES /* if you want old style notes headers moved into the headers */
+ #define ZAPNNRE /* if you want to fix bad "Re^n:" subjects */
#define DIGPAGE /* allow digestifying in vnews */
#define DOXREFS /* Generate xref line for rn to use */
/* #define MULTICAST /* If you want to be able to multicast news */
*** inews.c.old Thu Sep 7 08:41:14 1989
--- inews.c Thu Sep 7 08:58:45 1989
***************
*** 1000,1005 ****
--- 1000,1016 ----
}
#endif /* ZAPNOTES */
+ #ifdef ZAPNNRE
+ if (STRNCMP(header.title, "Re^", 3) == 0) {
+ char *src, *dest;
+ logerr("Bad NN Re^n: subject line, fixing");
+
+ dest=header.title+2;
+ for (src=dest; *src != ':' && *src != '\0'; src++);
+ do { *dest++ = *src; } while (*src++ != '\0');
+ }
+ #endif /* ZAPNNRE */
+
if (time((time_t *)0) > (cgtdate(header.subdate) + HISTEXP) ){
logerr("Article too old, moved to junk");
if (localize("junk")) {
--- cut here --- cut here --- cut here --- cut here --- cut here ---
--
Annex Canada now! We need the room, \) Tom Neff
and who's going to stop us. (\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NETtanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) (09/16/89)
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET writes...
) [patch to edit "Subject:" headers in inews]
I am not entirely convinced that it is polite for the transport agent
to go in and edit the user-supplied subject of his message.
It may be appropriate for specific user agents to modify the subject
DISPLAY, but this action should be based on the user's preference
and should in no wise be implemented at the transport level. The
only effect should be on the display presented by the user agent to
the user.
--
...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner ...!bpa!cdin-1!ki4pv!tanner
or... {allegra attctc gatech!uflorida uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tannertneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (09/17/89)
In article <7120@ki4pv.uucp> tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) writes: >tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET writes... >) [patch to edit "Subject:" headers in inews] > >I am not entirely convinced that it is polite for the transport agent >to go in and edit the user-supplied subject of his message. Yeah well, put it in perspective. I'm offering this unofficial patch as an alternative to *trashing* those non-RFC articles, as some have suggested, or rudely mass bombarding the poster with email. I figure the hack is innocuous enough that it's easier to do it this way and just SHUT the old 'nn' UP once and for all. Also note where it goes -- right next to ZAPNOTES which I didn't write but which also screws around with the header. If I'm wrong, that's wrong too. Anyway since it's unofficial, just vote with your #defines, not Pnews. -- 'We have luck only with women -- \\\ Tom Neff not spacecraft!' *-((O tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET -- R. Kremnev, builder of FOBOS \\\ uunet!bfmny0!tneff (UUCP)
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (09/18/89)
As quoted from <7120@ki4pv.uucp> by tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews): +--------------- | tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET writes... | ) [patch to edit "Subject:" headers in inews] | | I am not entirely convinced that it is polite for the transport agent | to go in and edit the user-supplied subject of his message. +--------------- Have you by any chance been reading the rest of this thread? The subject lines in question are in violation of RFC1050. Are you claiming that we should not enforce it? Then you'd best start trying to convince people that neither RFC1050 nor any other standard for Usenet messages should exist, and that anyone can put anything they want anywhere in a message. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp, 161-7070 BALLBERY (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie) Is that enough addresses for you? no? then: allbery@uunet.UU.NET (c.s.misc)
coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (09/18/89)
tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) writes: >tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET writes... >) [patch to edit "Subject:" headers in inews] >I am not entirely convinced that it is polite for the transport agent >to go in and edit the user-supplied subject of his message. I'm entirely convinced that this is a Bad Thing. If the subject line is not RFC compliant (and it really isn't, since Re: isn't used to lead the Subject: line), sending mail to the sender is probably the Right Thing to do, since they definitely have broken software. But I'm opposed to rewriting headers on the fly under any circumstances. The only exceptions are, IMHO: gatewayers, who often need to rewrite headers; Path: which needs to be rewritten; and Xref:, which is a local header (and is probably in the wrong place anyway). The first rule is: Thou Shalt Not Rewrite Headers, unless such rewriting is _explicitly_ allowed by the appropriate RFC. You can ignore headers, ignore errors in headers, send mail to people with broken headers, etc., but rewriting them is out of bounds. Trashing messages because the headers are bad is also a big no-no unless the headers are SO damaged that the message cannot possibly be handled correctly (no Message-ID: for instance). This is all, of course, IMHO, but I hope that the rest of the net agrees, because it seems to me that this is what the net should be doing: sending what is written, as it was written, whenever it's possible to do so. --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1989 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
sfreed@tesla.unm.edu (Steve Freed) (09/18/89)
coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) writes: >If the subject line is >not RFC compliant (and it really isn't, since Re: isn't used to lead the >Subject: line), sending mail to the sender is probably the Right Thing >to do, since they definitely have broken software. No, this is NOT the thing to do. They are USING old software and in 99.9% of the cases they have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with it. We have about 15,000 users here, and there is only about 5 people here who could update it, and only one, myself, who knows anything about it. (nn) If you are going to write anybody, then write the systems administrator or at least someone who can actually do something about it. The poor user will probably have no idea what you are talking about. -- Steve. sfreed@ariel.unm.edu
coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (09/18/89)
sfreed@tesla.unm.edu (Steve Freed) writes: >coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) writes: >>If the subject line is >>not RFC compliant (and it really isn't, since Re: isn't used to lead the >>Subject: line), sending mail to the sender is probably the Right Thing >>to do, since they definitely have broken software. >[...]If you are going to write anybody, then write the systems >administrator or at least someone who can actually do something >about it. The poor user will probably have no idea what you are talking >about. That's really what I meant. However, the basic point remains: don't drop messages and don't rewrite headers, but rather inform the people writing bad headers of the problem. Response mail of this sort probably should go to usenet@site or postmaster@site, at least until mail to those things fails. Mail to the original poster should be a last resort type of thing. On the other hand, the original poster *should* know who to yell at to get buggy software fixed... --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1989 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (09/18/89)
sfreed@tesla.unm.edu (Steve Freed) writes: [...]If you are going to write anybody, then write the systems >administrator or at least someone who can actually do something >about it. The poor user will probably have no idea what you are talking >about. If you say what's wrong, the user can forward the mail message to her administator. If you copy the recent program, however, all that will happen is that my mail filter will return-to-sender (:-)). Seriously, though, a nice wordy message saying what's wrong and where to look for the corrections is always usefull. In many case the recipient will volunteer to do minor fixes! --dave -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@yunexus, ...!yunexus!davecb or 72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave Willowdale, Ontario, | Joyce C-B: CANADA. 416-223-8968 | He's so smart he's dumb.
root@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (System Administrator) (09/21/89)
it just occurred to me why should we have to patch the news to fix a problem with nn? It really does not make much sense to me. rich
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (09/21/89)
In article <1565@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US> root@jolnet.UUCP (System Administrator) writes: >it just occurred to me why should we have to patch the news to fix >a problem with nn? It really does not make much sense to me. NN has already been patched for those who want to upgrade, but there is no way to legislate that everyone in fact upgrade (just as there is no way to legislate that people shall not post news as root :-) ). My patch renders the non-upgraders harmless, silently. It needn't stay around long, I'm sure. Just try it. -- "My God, Thiokol, when do you \\ Tom Neff want me to launch? Next April?" \\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) (09/22/89)
Quoted without comment: > [Certain folks] are USING old software and in 99.9% of the cases they > have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with it. -- To understand Sun's corporate culture look at the vi source code. Arthur David Olson ado@alw.nih.gov ADO is a trademark of Ampex.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (09/23/89)
In article <1989Sep17.171220.2605@NCoast.ORG>, allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: > [the] lines in question are in violation of RFC1050. Are you claiming that we > should not enforce it? Yes. Remember: "Be strict about what you generate, be liberal about what you accept". It's just as true for news transport agents as for TCPIP broadcast addresses. -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "BORED OF THE RINGS was written by Sir James Burton, the famous actor. It was published by the Society for the Propagation of Religious Truth." - Tim Maroney
ralph@nastassia.laas.fr (Ralph P. Sobek) (09/26/89)
In article <6258@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: | Yes. Remember: "Be strict about what you generate, be liberal about what you | accept". It's just as true for news transport agents as for TCPIP broadcast | addresses. How correct! I just received a message containing "Re^n:" generated not by NN but by RMAIL (under emacs). Strict adherance to the RFCs maybe desirable. Ralph P. Sobek Disclaimer: The above ruminations are my own. ralph@laas.laas.fr Addresses are ordered by importance. ralph@laas.uucp, or ...!uunet!mcvax!laas!ralph If all else fails, try: SOBEK@FRMOP11.BITNET sobek@eclair.Berkeley.EDU =============================================================================== Upon the instruments of death the sunlight brightly gleams. -- King Crimson