On 5 Jul 1996, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> [I'm replying to some of these out of order, so things are getting
> confusing. Sorry if I answer questions more than once.]
That's fine, we both seem to be doing that. Regardless, this seems to be
the final conclusion for the night so I'll just reply (even though it
seems we're both saying the same thing twice now). I just want to make
sure that we both know what's going to be final. Also, I believe that we
fully agree on the basic three methods of approval. As you've listed them,
I'm in concurrence.
> Here's where we are. There are three ways to approve a message:
>
> 1.
> ----
> Header:
> Header:
> Approved:
> Header:
>
> bodybodybody
> ----
>
> 2.
> ----
> Header:
> Header:
>
> Approved:
>
> bodybodybody
> ----
>
> 3.
> ----
> IgnoredHeader:
> IgnoredHeader:
>
> Approved:
> Header:
> Header:
>
> bodybodybody
> ----
>
> In all cases, only Header:s will make it into the final headers;
> IgnoredHeader:s will be trashed, as will Approved:s. The body of every
> message will by "bodybodybody". Headers and body will be separated by a
> single blank line. All blank lines are required (though the first one is
> usually automatically generated by a mailer.
>
> You usually use 1 when running approve (that's what it generates) or when
> send a posting that you want to go straight through without being bounced
> to the moderator. You use 2 when you have a losing mailer but want to send a
> message straight through.
>
> You use 3 when you are approving a BOUNCE but can't run approve. You type
> an Approved: header, then cut and paste the full headers and body in after
> it. I suppose you could use 1 if you had the proper mailer, but 3 is
> probably easier in this case _and_ gets around the intelligence some
> mailers have when it comes to Message-IDs and Date headers. (They like to
> generate them themselves and may silently delete yours. approve calls the
> MTA directly so it can use 1 in this case.)
>
> Now, are there any other cases to consider? Outside of supporting more
> broken mailers, I can't think of any other way you actually use the
> Approved: header.
No, I don't believe there are. While you are gone I will try to seek
opinions on majordomo-users and resolve the problems people might have. I
guess that isn't common practice, but I figure I have a week to deal it. In
regards to broken mailers, I think we've covered the majority of them.
Every mailer I know of inserts a blank line between headers and body when
you send out a message, in which case we're fine.
Regardless, for a final summary for the night -- what I've quoted above
seems to be it.
Comments, questions anyone??
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Brock Rozen | brozen@netvoyage.net | http://www.netvoyage.net/~brozen |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
|
|
