Re: [leafnode-list] Setting Path header

[Joerg Dietrich <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 10:09:06PM +0200, otr wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
> > Surely it would be simpler and cleaner if Leafnode didn't give any
> > special consideration to Path?
> I agree, and at last hosts with private Internet address (rfc 1918) might not
> appear in the path header.

I disagree. Most newsreaders set the value of path. While it is
true that most, if not all, upstream would not complain about a
missing Path: header, the Path: header is indeed required by
RFC 977. In the few cases leafnode has to set the Path: header by
itself, the value used is the same as for the message-id. The
documentation explicitly mentions the importance of setting a
valid hostname. If this is not done, the message-id and not the
path is the problem. Actually we would be lucky if some upstream
refused an article with invalid Path: header as it would save us
from invalid Message-ID: headers which is much more severe.

> rfc850 (Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages) says :

Is obsoleted, but correct in the description of the Path: header.

Regards,
	Jo:rg

-- 
Fortune cookie of the day:
According to the obituary notices, a mean and unimportant person never dies.

-- 
leafnode-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- mailing list for leafnode
To unsubscribe, send mail with "unsubscribe" in the subject to the list