brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/28/89)
Some sites aren't putting ot valid message-ids, but what's worse is that it seems a *lot* of posting software still isn't putting out a vaild References: line. I put together some software to track followups, and quite often I found articles with the same subject, and even a "re:" (indicating computer generated followup) that did not have similar followup chains. Now I thought most newsreaders and news posters like Pnews had been generating this for some time. Who isn't? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (05/01/89)
In article <3164@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
#Some sites aren't putting ot valid message-ids, but what's worse is that
#it seems a *lot* of posting software still isn't putting out a vaild
#References: line.
Another 'sin' is bad Reply-to: lines. These are very very common indeed,
because rn and rrn as supplied are set up to give you a Reply-to: in the
form host.UUCP. Until I noticed, our postings had a nice legal From:
line, but said Reply-to: user@acer.UUCP! You have to hack Pnews etc.,
which not every news admin wants to bother with. Please bother!
Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK
dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW
Living in a country without a written constitution means having to trust in
the Good Will of the Government and the Generosity of Civil Servants.wisner@terminator.cc.umich.edu (Bill Wisner) (05/02/89)
(David Wright)
>Another 'sin' is bad Reply-to: lines.
There is no need to include a Reply-To line unless it differs from your
From line. Doing so is simply needless repetition. Because of this, you
may with to consider simply punting the rn code that generates Reply-To
lines (better yet, make Reply-To one of those headers that rn defaults to
empty, like Summary or Followup-To).