Google| Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
| From | Eric Stevens |
| Date | 04/28/2014 01:52 (04/28/2014 11:52) |
| Message-ID | <pe5rl957vhm7qoekk8ni93b8nu7aneeshn@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
On 27 Apr 2014 10:30:01 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
SandmanYou have this habit of removing URLs. Is it that you don't want other people read the RFCs?
In article <1hiol99gapt3bbihknj6765pvpdate8ebb@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:SandmanEric StevensSandmanEric StevensSandman
Unfortunately not all news readers will recognise the change in subject and the response of others may be configurable. But irrespective of how your news reader responds, you started a new thread.
Incorrect. A new thread has an empty References: header. Mine did not.Here is the entire thread again:http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=153422Eric Stevens
You can write software to do anything you like. That doesn't mean that it conforms with a standard.
Only, mine does. See RFC 5537, section 3.4.4 for reference of how the References: header must be used.
See section 3.4.3.
We're not talking about those headers, Eric. Please read the RFC.
You will find the RFC at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5537
Section 3.4.3 deals with the treatment of header fields, which term includes references. It says:
" .... it means that its initial content is to be a copy of the content of that precursor header field (with changes in folding permitted). However, posters MAY then override that default before posting."
Section 3.4.4 deals specifically with the references header field. Note that it says of trimming the header field:
"If the resulting References header field would, after unfolding, exceed 998 characters in length (including its field name but not the final CRLF), it MUST be trimmed (and otherwise MAY be trimmed)."
In other words, there is nothing sacred about the references field. --
Regards,
Eric Stevens
04/14/2014-
