Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id EAA17147; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 04:42:42 -0500 Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.3); Tue, 7 Nov 1995 04:39:39 -0500 Received: from ester.dsv.su.se by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id EAA16866; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 04:39:37 -0500 Received: (from jpalme@localhost) by ester.dsv.su.se (8.7.1/8.7.1) id KAA15904; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 10:39:27 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 10:39:27 +0100 (MET) From: Jacob Palme To: ietf-drums cc: John Stanley Subject: (fwd) Posted-To standard (was Re: Posted-To: header (was Re: Pine and Newsgroups, again) (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Where should this issue be discussed in IETF? Note: I though comp.mail.headers was gatewayed to header-people, but this does not seem to be the case. I did not get the message below through the header-people mailing list. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Palme (Stockholm University and KTH) for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers,news.software.readers Subject: Posted-To standard (was Re: Posted-To: header (was Re: Pine and Newsgroups, again) Date: 19 Oct 1995 19:33:59 GMT Organization: University Computing Services - Oregon State University Lines: 169 Message-ID: <466977$fpl@news.orst.edu> References: <44ning$7om@mars.mcs.com> <463b88$g5c@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: skyking.oce.orst.edu Xref: news.kth.se comp.mail.headers:2528 news.software.readers:23081 Status: N In article , Per Abrahamsen wrote: > >The latest alpha release of Gnus now supports `Posted-To'. How about waiting until there is some standard that says how it is supposed to be used, huh? Does Gnus do the right thing with Posted-To in the posted copy? What is the right thing? Remove it. It should never appear in a news article. If it does, it can cause the mistaken belief that the news article is a mail message. Posted-To is the one clear flag that you are seeing a mail message that was also posted somewhere. I spent a few hours last night writing this up. Standards for Combined Mail and USENET News Agents 1.0 Status This RFC updates RFC 1036 and RFC 822. 2.0 Introduction The increasing number of users of both the Internet and USENET, and the broader variance in these user's experience with "the network" has led to an increased desire for centralized messaging agents. That is, users are desirous of having one program to learn in order to participate in "the network". Unfortunately, this demand has uncovered at least one problem area in the current specifications for messaging. There is currently no defined way of knowing whether a message received by mail is a copy of a message which has been posted publicly to news or not. This problem is exacerbated by a large installed base of news agents which retain news-specific headers in mail-only messages, and agents which ascribe the news meaning to those headers in mail. In particular, the problem can cause the undesired public posting of private email messages to news. It is for this reason that a solution is necessary. Because of the installed base of software which assumes that certain news headers are undefined in mail, it is not feasible to simply change the definition of these headers. New agents which use the new definition of these old headers would increase the likelyhood of the undesired conversion of private to public messages. 3.0 Definitions The following terms are used in this standard. These terms may have a broader meaning in other RFC, but are limited to the specific defintions within this document. 3.1 News Agent. A program used by a user to read and post news. 3.2 Mail Agent. A program used by a user to read and send mail. 3.3 Combined Agent. A program which combines the functions of mail agent and news agent in one. 3.4 Mail Message. Any message prepared by an agent for transmission by mail only. 3.5 News Message. Any message prepared by an agent for transmission by news only. 3.6 Combined Message. Any message which a user agent distributes via both news and mail transports. A message which is converted from mail to news, or vice versa, by a third party gateway, is not a combined message for the purposes of this RFC. 4.0 Header Consolidation 4.1 References The definition of the References header as found in RFC 1036 shall supersede the definition found in RFC 822. This will allow a common, standard format by which combined agents can thread messages for the user, whether mail or news or both. In addition, the use of the References header in replies to mail or combined messages shall be mandatory. When a combined agent prepares a combined message, the agent must include the same References header in both forms of the message. 4.2 Message-Id Combined agents allow users to post replies to combined messages prior to the arrival of the message at the user's news system. To be able to meet the requirements of RFC 1036 for the Reference header in the posted reply, it is mandatory that the same message id be present in the news and mail versions of any message created by a combined agent. Further, RFC 822 is amended to make Message-Id a mandatory header. 4.3 Followup-To RFC 822 is amended to include the definition of the Followup-To header as specified in RFC 1036. A combined agent which generates a combined message shall include the same Followup-To header in both forms, if it is present. A combined agent which prepares a mail message shall not include a Followup-To header in that message. 4.4 In-Reply-To It is strongly recommended that a combined agent which generates a mail message in reply to a combined or news message include an In-Reply-To header which contains at least one of the newsgroups the original message was posted to and the message id of the message being replied to. For example: In-Reply-To: article in newsgroup comp.lang.c 4.5 Posted-To This RFC defines the new header "Posted-To:". The Posted-To header shall have the same syntax as the Newsgroups header defined in RFC 1036. A combined agent shall replace "Newsgroups:" with "Posted-To:" in the version of a combined message that it presents to the mail transport system. A combined agent shall include neither a Newsgroups nor a Posted-To header in a mail message. A combined agent shall not insert a Posted-To header in a news message. It is intended that the Posted-To header be the unique indicator that a message transported via mail has also been posted to news. Because of the current usage of the Newsgroups header in mail in two different ways, it is not practical to simply define the Newsgroups header for mail. It is strongly recommended that user agents of all kinds maintain the Posted-To header in any stored copies of received mail, to allow agents and users to identify stored copies of messages received by mail which were originally combined messages. It is also strongly recommneded that user agents of all kinds maintain the Path and Newsgroups headers in any stored copies of news messages, to enable the agents and users to identify stored copies of news messages. By maintaining these headers, it should be possible for an agent to detect which messages have been posted to news, and for those agents to safely recommend replies by news. 5.0 Preparation of Replies to Combined Messages When a combined agent detects a Posted-To header in a message a user wishes to reply to, it should allow the user the choice of replying by mail only, by news only, or by a combined message. If the user selects news or combined, the agent shall determine the default set of newsgroups to post to from the Followup-To header, if present, or the Posted-To header if there is no Followup-To. It is strongly recommended that the agent presents the list of newsgroups to the user for approval and/or editing, and that, if the full header is presented, it be presented in the Newsgroups form instead of the Posted-To form. One of the goals of this standard is the reduction of the unexpected conversion of private mail messages to public news messages. For that reason, it is strongly recommended that a combined agent which does not detect the Posted-To header, or the combination of Newsgroups and Path headers, in a message the user is replying to by news, confirm with the user the desire to respond by news. A user who wishes to convert what appears to be a mail discussion into a news discussion should be warned that he may be doing this. A user should not be prevented from doing this, but he should not be able to blame the agent for not warning him of what he was doing.