Hello Robert,

Robert Klemme wrote:
>>- Add an "In-Reply-To"/"References" flag to the header by using the
>>   message-id of THAT mail => the message would appear on c.l.r., but
>>   threading would be broken
> 
> 
> That's my favorite.  It would be even better if the GW could figure the
> correct message id and insert that.  But with these headers it seems quite
> impractical.

This is not possible because in cases like this there is no real clue to
which thread/posting this is a reply to (without utilising human
intelligence or complex algorithms of course).

>>- my solution: as mua's are more or less allowed to do whatever they
>>   want my fear is that we get more and more of such borderline cases
>>   so the only solution is that we establish identical posting policies
>>   on both the mailing-list host and the gateway/nntp host we're posting
>>   too. (ML-Maintainers? Any Comments on this one?)
> 
> 
> I guess this is impractical since it sounds like this would rule out some
> mail clients.  People will not be happy about that.

The point is that the policy of ruby-talk is quite sleazy whilc
they're very strict for Usenet postings. People can send almost any 
garbage to the mailing list if they're subscribed to it and allowed
to post. In my opinion it is the right behaviour to drop any mail
which is not well-formed as soon as possible.

This leads to the conclusion that we'll either have some sort of
inconsistency between those two medias, or we would have to synchronize
the policies up to a certain point where those inconsistencies converge
against 0.

Kind regards,
	Dennis Oelkers
-- 
Dennis Oelkers | Webadministration | Zentraleinrichtung Rechenzentrum
TU-Berlin      | EN-Gebaeude, K042 | Telefon: 030-314-25029

Key Fingerprint:
A6 7A B6 90 09 56 E8 32  02 40 6B 27 80 17 00 89  61 E7 CA 6F