On Thu, Jul 26 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Or are you saying that when the 21 limit is reached it incorrectly keeps the >> oldest 21 rather than the most recent 21?
Neither one is the case. See below. >> That would indeed be a plain bug. > But that is what Lars said the RFC said the last time I brought this > up. Which you can see somewhere in news://news.gnus.org/gnus.gnus-bug > which is what http://gnus.org/resources.html says is the only way to > see gnus bug reports. ELISP> (message-shorten-references 'References "<0> <1> <2> <3> <4> <5> <6> <7> <8> <9> <10> \ <11> <12> <13> <14> <15> <16> <17> <18> <19> <20> \ <21> <22> <23> <24> <25> <26> <27> <28> <29> <30> \ <31> <32> <33> <34> <35> <36> <37> <38> <39> <40>") nil ELISP> References: <0> <21> <22> <23> <24> <25> <26> <27> <28> <29> <30> \ <31> <32> <33> <34> <35> <36> <37> <38> <39> <40> > Better add a nil/t defvar so the user can override the order just in > case Lars wasn't joking. > >> While 21 references is probably always overkill, 1 is not always enough, ,----[ http://www.landfield.com/usefor/drafts/gnksa-useage.txt ] | Comparison of GNKSA and USEAGE | C. H. Lindsey | 5 June 2004 | | This document describes the differences between GNKSA | <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/software/good-netkeeping-seal> and USEAGE | <http://www.landfield.com/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-00.txt>, | also with some references to USEFOR (draft-ietf-usefor-article-13.txt). | | [...] | | > The software MUST include at least three additional Message-IDs from | > the original article's References header as well, if they are available. | > Try to stay as close as possible to the spirit of "son-of-1036", which | > states: | > | > <<Followup agents SHOULD not shorten References headers. If | > it is absolutely necessary to shorten the header, as a des- | > perate last resort, a followup agent MAY do this by deleting | > some of the message IDs. However, it MUST not delete the | > first message ID, the last three message IDs (including that | > of the immediate precursor), or any message ID mentioned in | > the body of the followup.>> | | That requirement concerning Message-IDs in the body is no longer in | USEFOR. It would be a pain to implement, and I doubt it ever was. | | > | > However, it also says: | > | > <<If it is absolutely necessary for an implementation to | > impose a limit on the length of header lines, body lines, or | > header logical lines, that limit shall be at least 1000 | > octets, including EOL representations.>> | | USEAGE has 20 rather then 3. `---- 20 + 1 = 21 > OK, make you a deal: 20, or OK, 25, anything, as long as you have a > defvar so the user can override it -- allow him as big a beehive > hairdo of references as he wants. Make 0 mean no references at all. > > I mean hardwiring any number without a defvar alternative should raise > a red flag anyway. Not if the hardwired number is recommended by the relevant standards. I'm not convinced that we should have a defvar (or even a defconst for this). Bye, Reiner. -- ,,, (o o) ---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- | PGP key available | http://rsteib.home.pages.de/ _______________________________________________ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug