GNKSA/U : Gravity 1.01.500 for Windows 95/NT passes
Christian Perrier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All GNKSA/U evaluations are compiled by Tim Pierce
at <URL:http://http.bsd.uchicago.edu/~t-pierce/news/>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The software is still qualified to receive the Good Net-Keeping Seal of Approval for
Usenet Software (see <URL:http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/Good_Netkeeping_Seal>) .
Note that version 1.00 was already GNKSA/U compliant
Some useful features not required by GNKSA/U are included. I mention them as I think
that other software should implement these :
1.The Reply-To: field is syntactically checked,
2.The way Gravity handles the difficult problem of "Post WYSIWYG and 80 character
lines" is nearly perfect. Version 1.01 even enhances 1.00 behaviour (the quoted lines
are not badly wrapped now),
Some non GNKSA/U-requested features should IMHO be added :
1.The software should insert the appropriate MIME headers (Mime-Version: and Content-
Type:) when posting with 8-bit characters included,
2.Gravity should properly decode Quoted-Printable (but NOT post QP!) as well as
encoded headers (things like "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?anim=E9?= ").
This software may be found at <URL:http://www.microplanet.com>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is the detailed evaluation checklist :
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Req Itm Sub- Item
rd? ## Description item OK? OK? Notes
Y 1 Display all essential header info YES
Y default is to display YES
Y a) display author YES
Y b) display subject YES
Y c) display newsgroups list YES
Y d) display Followup-To list YES
Y e) display Reply-To if /= From: YES
Y 2 Provide standard commands YES
Y clear YES
Y separate YES
Y a) post a new article YES
Y b) post a followup article YES
Y c) reply by email YES
N use standard terminology YES
Y 3 Implement cross-posting YES
Y allow user specification YES
Y cross-post (not multi-post) YES
Y 4 Change essential headers YES
Y change headers while editing body YES
Y change Subject YES
Y allow at least 70 chars in subject YES
Y change Newsgroups YES
Y change Followup-To YES
Y allow followup-to: poster YES
Y change Reply-To YES
Y 5 Correct Subject headers in flwup/rply YES
Y a) prepend "Re: " (exactly!) YES
Y b) preserve entire Subject YES
Y even subjects > 80 chars long YES
Y 6 Respect Followup-To YES
Y use to initialize Newsgroups: in flwup YES
Y recognize and act on 'poster' YES 1)
Y 7 Followups contain References YES
Y contains message-id of original YES
Y never truncate individual message-id YES
N contains three Refs from original YES
N contains entire Refs of original YES
Y 8 Direct email reply to Reply-To YES
Y 9 Quotation and attribution YES
Y provide method YES
Y set off by prepend YES
Y attribution line YES 2)
Y identifies author YES
N gives message-id YES
Y 10 Subject is mandatory YES 3)
Y do not post empty or provide <none> YES
Y allow change while editing body YES
Y 11 Must provide valid From: header YES
Y syntactically valid YES 4)
N belongs to the user NO 5)
Y 12 Must provide cancel YES
Y of own articles YES
Y *not* of others YES
N 13 Respect line length, and post WYSIWYG YES
N line brks shown are present when posted YES
N do *not* post paragraph w/o line brks YES
N warn if body has lines > 80 chars YES 6)
N external editor conforms N/A
N 14 Prevent obvious errors YES
N prevent posting empty article YES 7)
N prevent posting only quoted text YES 7)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes to the checklist
First a short description of what the columns in this checklist stand for:
Req?:
A "Y" means that the item or subitem is a MUST for the software in order to get the
Good Net-Keeping Seal Approval.
ITM ##:
This is the item number in the GNKS document :
<URL:http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/Good_Netkeeping_Seal>
Description:
Follow the above link to the original document for a more detailed description and an
explanation of the rationale behind it.
Subitem OK ?: and Item OK?:
If the item is required, this is marked "YES" if all _required_ subitems are ok. If
it is _not_ required, it is marked "YES" if if _all_ subitems are ok.
Notes:
These are given below:
1.The software asks if the user wants to "respect" the Followup-To: poster with the
default to respect it. IMHO this is the best solution.
2.The default attribution line mentions the original author's email adress and the
Original Message-ID. This is IMHO enough (maybe the original author's real name would
be good also?),
3.The post is impossible with an empty subject,
4.I tried all styles of bogus email addresses I could imagine. Gravity 1.00 always
refused them. This check extends to the Reply-To: field when necessary. I have here
to mention that MicroPlanet people first made thick check less strict in the beta
program (adresses such as bubulle.@bubhome.frmug.fr.net were accepted) but very
quickly accepted to bring back 1.00 behaviour when tehy were told that this would
make the software non compliant. I consider this as a sign that GNKSA/U compliance is
a major concern for them.
5.This may be considered impossible on a single user (no real system administrator)
platform.
6.Gravity seems to have found the nearly perfect way for solving this difficult
problem. The default is having word wrap occur at 78 characters (maybe a little lower
would be better). Then all GNKSA/U requirements are satisfied. The only way of
posting an article with longer line is to temporarily change this settings to a
higher value. MP News warns then the user (for each posting!) about articles with
more than 80 character long lines being difficult to read. Version 1.00 had only one
problem : the quoted lines were badly wrapped when coming over 80 characters. This
has been modified in version 1.01. Quoted lines are now never wrapped.
7.Posting with an empty text is completely impossible. When posting an article
containing only quoted text, the user is simply warned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This evaluation has been conducted by Christian Perrier
Bill Stewart-Cole
In article <MPG.c92a3645a433e709896d4@bubhome>, bub...@bubhome.frmug.fr.net (Christian Perrier) wrote:
[...]
>X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v1.01
[...]
>2.The way Gravity handles the difficult problem of "Post WYSIWYG and 80 character
>lines" is nearly perfect. Version 1.01 even enhances 1.00 behaviour (the quoted lines
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Oh really?
Try again.
--
Bill Stewart-Cole
Jimmy
In article <50akig$l...@mn5.swip.net>, Jan D., Jan....@mbox200.swipnet.se
said...
> In article <MPG.c92a3645a433e709896d4@bubhome>,
> Christian Perrier <bub...@bubhome.frmug.fr.net> wrote:
>
> [snipp]
>
> > 2.The way Gravity handles the difficult problem of "Post WYSIWYG and 80 character
> > lines" is nearly perfect. Version 1.01 even enhances 1.00 behaviour (the quoted lines
> > are not badly wrapped now),
>
> and *with the same reader* posts lines longer than 80 character.
> The "handling" is obviously not perfect :-)
>
> Jan D.
>
>
>
Actually the handling is fine it's the user thats imperfect. Note this post
is with the same reader and it's properly wrapped except of course for the
original quote =)
--
-Jimmy
I don't want unsolicited e-mail therefore please ask for my e-mail
address if you feel the need for private correspondence, Thanks.
--- Posted using Gravity version 1.01.500 ---
Jan D.
In article <MPG.c92a3645a433e709896d4@bubhome>,
Christian Perrier <bub...@bubhome.frmug.fr.net> wrote:
[snipp]
> 2.The way Gravity handles the difficult problem of "Post WYSIWYG and 80 character
> lines" is nearly perfect. Version 1.01 even enhances 1.00 behaviour (the quoted lines
> are not badly wrapped now),
It's amusing to see someone praise the handling of long lines in posts
Christian Perrier
In article <MPG.c92a3645a433e709896d4@bubhome>,
bub...@bubhome.frmug.fr.net says...
(sorry for posting a followup to my own article but it nedds
clarification)
> 2.The way Gravity handles the difficult problem of "Post WYSIWYG and 80 character
> lines" is nearly perfect. Version 1.01 even enhances 1.00 behaviour (the quoted lines
> are not badly wrapped now),
YES, I KNOW! Lines above were above 80 characters long. But the problem
is nwith Gravity.
After conducting my evaluation (and thus making several changes to my
yusual setup), I just forgot to bring back Gravity default settings to
72 character-wide lines before pasting the text version of my evaluation
in my composition window.
Then, I was stupid enough for ignoring the warning shown by Gravity when
I tried to post tyhe article with such long lines.....and then I posted
it.
This was stupid, indeed. But only Christian Perrier was stupid, not
Gravity...:-). Thus, only Christian Perrier is non GNKSA/U compliant,
not Gravity.
Bill Stewart-Cole
In article <Dx2CC...@midway.uchicago.edu>, Tim Pierce
<twpi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>The point is that even if the user is permitted to post such
>articles -- and if feasible, the newsreader really ought to make
>it impossible to do so -- it should at least be very, very
>inconvenient.
I think that's a little TOO far.
There are a number of cases where long lines are helpful, if not esential.
The simplest example is citing an URL of 81 characters.
Instead of 'impossible' or 'very, very inconvenient' I prefer a standard
of ilong lines being:
1. Not the default behavior.
2. Protested loudly by the newsreader when switched on and when posting a
message.
3. Never persistent. You can turn off wrap for a message, but only for one
message at a time.
--
Bill Stewart-Cole
Jimmy
In article <Dx2CC...@midway.uchicago.edu>, Tim Pierce,
twpi...@midway.uchicago.edu said...
> In article <MPG.c92c1eaa...@snews2.zippo.com>,
> Jimmy <a...@for.it.please> wrote:
>
> >In article <50akig$l...@mn5.swip.net>, Jan D., Jan....@mbox200.swipnet.se
> >said...
> >
> >>
> >> > 2.The way Gravity handles the difficult problem of "Post WYSIWYG and 80 character
> >> > lines" is nearly perfect.
> >>
> >
> >is with the same reader and it's properly wrapped except of course for the
> >original quote =)
>
> articles -- and if feasible, the newsreader really ought to make
> it impossible to do so -- it should at least be very, very
> very attentive to these issues, should praise Gravity's handling
> of the long-lines problem in a post with 90-column lines.
Wel I thought it was inconvenient enough already ! After all it pops up a
dialog warning you that your post is over 80 columns and asks you if your
sure you want to send, more than most winsock readers do...
> >--
> >-Jimmy
> >
> >I don't want unsolicited e-mail therefore please ask for my e-mail
> >address if you feel the need for private correspondence, Thanks.
>
> That's kind of difficult to do, you know.
Difficult ? To ask for my e-mail address ? or to avoid unsolicited e-mail ?
Either one seems fairly simple to me =)
> --
> By sending unsolicited commercially-oriented e-mail to this address, the
> sender agrees to pay a $100 flat fee to the recipient for proofreading
> services.
Olly Betts
In article <MPG.c93aeb3b...@snews2.zippo.com>, Jimmy wrote:
>In article <Dx2CC...@midway.uchicago.edu>, Tim Pierce,
>twpi...@midway.uchicago.edu said...
>> In article <MPG.c92c1eaa...@snews2.zippo.com>,
>> Jimmy <a...@for.it.please> wrote:
>> >I don't want unsolicited e-mail therefore please ask for my e-mail
>> >address if you feel the need for private correspondence, Thanks.
>>
>> That's kind of difficult to do, you know.
>
>Difficult ? To ask for my e-mail address ? or to avoid unsolicited e-mail ?
>Either one seems fairly simple to me =)
OK, say I want to mail you. I don't know your e-mail address. "please ask"
you say. But I don't have your e-mail address to ask you. Do you really
expect people to post to a group to ask for your e-mail address so they can
send you mail? If I wanted to send you e-mail to help out on a question
you'd asked, I'd give up at this point.
While not setting a valid return address to avoid junk mail may seem a good
idea on the surface, the problem comes if more than a handful of people
start to use the idea. Then the From: header becomes totally useless, and
all replies to posts have to be posted, or put on hold while you post a
request for an e-mail address and wait for a reply.
Meanwhile the junk mailers find other ways to build lists of e-mail
addresses and make more money selling them to each other, since it's no
longer so trivial to get hold of them. Thus you've made usenet less usable
with no overall gain.
Better to tackle the problem at source and find some way to stop commercial
unsolicited mail. Perhaps some "code of conduct"?
Olly
--
cool wet grass cool wet grass cool wet grass cool wet grass cool wet grass
Tony Edwards
In article <MPG.c940ed97fe5135a9896d8@bubhome>,
bub...@bubhome.frmug.fr.net says...
> This was stupid, indeed. But only Christian Perrier was stupid, not
> Gravity...:-). Thus, only Christian Perrier is non GNKSA/U compliant,
> not Gravity.
>
Well, you demonstrated that it is only a warning and not an absolute
imposition with great precision ;-) By the way, Christian Perrier is
FAR from stupid!
--
Tony Edwards
MicroPlanet, Inc.
http://www.microplanet.com
Jimmy
In article <slrn52lna...@mantis.co.uk>, Olly Betts,
ol...@mantis.co.uk said...
> In article <MPG.c93aeb3b...@snews2.zippo.com>, Jimmy wrote:
> >In article <Dx2CC...@midway.uchicago.edu>, Tim Pierce,
> >twpi...@midway.uchicago.edu said...
> >> In article <MPG.c92c1eaa...@snews2.zippo.com>,
> >> Jimmy <a...@for.it.please> wrote:
> >> >I don't want unsolicited e-mail therefore please ask for my e-mail
> >> >address if you feel the need for private correspondence, Thanks.
> >>
> >> That's kind of difficult to do, you know.
> >
> >Difficult ? To ask for my e-mail address ? or to avoid unsolicited e-mail ?
> >Either one seems fairly simple to me =)
>
> OK, say I want to mail you. I don't know your e-mail address. "please ask"
> you say. But I don't have your e-mail address to ask you. Do you really
> expect people to post to a group to ask for your e-mail address so they can
> send you mail? If I wanted to send you e-mail to help out on a question
> you'd asked, I'd give up at this point.
Well you see that is what makes this work so well ! The only way you would
go to such lengths is if you really had something important to discuss with
me which obviously you did not and so there's one more unsolicited e-mail
I've avoided =) And if I was asking a question that required an e-mail
reply I would include my e-mail address however I dont often do that...
> While not setting a valid return address to avoid junk mail may seem a good
> idea on the surface, the problem comes if more than a handful of people
> start to use the idea. Then the From: header becomes totally useless, and
> all replies to posts have to be posted, or put on hold while you post a
> request for an e-mail address and wait for a reply.
>
> Meanwhile the junk mailers find other ways to build lists of e-mail
> addresses and make more money selling them to each other, since it's no
> longer so trivial to get hold of them. Thus you've made usenet less usable
> with no overall gain.
>
> Better to tackle the problem at source and find some way to stop commercial
> unsolicited mail. Perhaps some "code of conduct"?
>
In a perfect world such a task might be possible but you see it is not only
the commercial unsolicited e-mail that I dont like recieving it is human as
well. E-mail from people wanting me to come check out there new websites.
CC'd mail with one line replies. There are also people that like to mail
bomb for various reasons and this makes me a less likely target. So
basically I feel my e-mail address is like my telephone number, it's
unlisted and so is my e-mail. And also I have responded to both of your
replies already and had you stated why you wanted my e-mail address you
would already have it =)
I will start providing an e-mail address once I setup an account with
another remailer because then If I start getting to much unsolicited mail I
simply close the account and open a new one something that is not so easily
done through your isp.
Seeya...
--
-Jimmy
I don't want unsolicited e-mail therefore please ask for my e-mail
address if you feel the need for private correspondence, Thanks.
--- Posted using Gravity version 1.01.500 ---
Jan D.
Jimmy wrote:
> Well you see that is what makes this work so well ! The only way you would
> go to such lengths is if you really had something important to discuss with
> me which obviously you did not and so there's one more unsolicited e-mail
> I've avoided =) And if I was asking a question that required an e-mail
> reply I would include my e-mail address however I dont often do that...
You don't get it do you?
The point is that you are telling people to use Usenet for their private
communication with you. Usenet wasn't intended for that. Some of us
actually pay money to read news. You are in fact saying it's OK for a
lot of people to pay extra money when someone wants to communicate
privately with you.
Jan D.
Jimmy
In article <322D2B...@mbox200.swipnet.se>, Jan D.,
Jan....@mbox200.swipnet.se said...
No actually you are the one that doesn't get it the tag line said if you
feel the need for PRIVATE correspondence please ask me for my e-mail
address. However you are the one that has taken to bringing private
conversations onto the usenet...This sort of thing should be discussed via
e-mail however it's just the type of thing I like to avoid hence the non-
disclosed e-mail address. Why does that bother you so much ? If you care to
carry this thread on any longer would you please show for the record at
least one time (other than this of course which you provoked) when I have
carried on a private discussion via usenet ? And I also have never said it
was "OK"... oh forget it you are too clueless to even talk to bye bye -----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------> PLONK !
--
--- Posted using Gravity version 1.01.500 ---
Jan D.
Obviously Jimmy can't handle discussions.
Jimmy wrote:
> No actually you are the one that doesn't get it the tag line said if you
> feel the need for PRIVATE correspondence please ask me for my e-mail
> address. However you are the one that has taken to bringing private
> conversations onto the usenet...This sort of thing should be discussed via
> e-mail however it's just the type of thing I like to avoid hence the non-
> disclosed e-mail address. Why does that bother you so much ? If you care to
> carry this thread on any longer would you please show for the record at
> least one time (other than this of course which you provoked) when I have
> carried on a private discussion via usenet ? And I also have never said it
> was "OK"... oh forget it you are too clueless to even talk to bye bye
No, I'm not clueless. The only place to ask for your email address is
Usenet, asking YOU for YOUR email address is a private conversation.
And that is what you are telling people to do, thus saying it is OK with
private messages on Usenet.
This is not a private discussion (that's why I post again). It is
public so that other that may consider doing the same as you can learn
the arguments against it. The fact that you act as the target does not
imply that I am only considering you as the reader.
It bothers me when clueless people disregard the netiquette and the
culture that Usenet has.
Jan D.
Christian Perrier
In article <MPG.c97747d1...@snews2.zippo.com>,
a...@for.it.please says...
> In article <322D2B...@mbox200.swipnet.se>, Jan D.,
> Jan....@mbox200.swipnet.se said...
> > Jimmy wrote:
> >
>
privately to remove fr.usenet.logiciels of the newsgroups lines, as your
discussion seems less and less related to my original post?
Many thanks in advance...
Taki Kogoma
bub...@bubhome.frmug.fr.net (Christian Perrier) appears to have submitted
message <MPG.c996a9b8b45313c9896fa@bubhome> to news.software.readers:
Why don't you people take this argument to email?
Gym "Oh...Right..." Quirk
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk - qu...@swcp.com | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
Retired 'Secret Master of | superior to what I have now."
rec.arts.startrek' | -- Gym Quirk
Jimmy
In article <322EA2...@lu.erisoft.se>, Jan D.,
Jan....@mbox200.swipnet.se said...
> No, I'm not clueless. The only place to ask for your email address is
> Usenet, asking YOU for YOUR email address is a private conversation.
> And that is what you are telling people to do, thus saying it is OK with
> private messages on Usenet.
>
> This is not a private discussion (that's why I post again). It is
> public so that other that may consider doing the same as you can learn
> the arguments against it. The fact that you act as the target does not
> imply that I am only considering you as the reader.
>
> It bothers me when clueless people disregard the netiquette and the
> culture that Usenet has.
>
> Jan D.
>
Have to plonk you on this server as well...this is becoming annoying.
Regardless have you ever heard of CC'ing ? If I see someone that I feel
needs my email address I will CC them a copy of my reply and include my
email address in it and considering that I don't ask for email replies all
someone has to do is add one little line to the end of their reply "Can we
discuss this via e-mail and off my CC'd reply goes to them with my email
address if you have a problem with that It's just to bad <g>. Are you this
annoying to everyone ? Sounds like you have some personal problems to deal
with lets not drag it into usenet though ok ? BTW you have been plonked on
2 of my servers so I doubt if i will see any replies. In other words this
thread should die here end of discussion but feel free to reply if you feel
the need to defend youself in the publics eye for talking about something
which you obviously have no understanding and that of which does not
concern you...
Thank you for your time,
-Jimmy
Normally I would attach my e-mail address right here however you can't have
it <g>
Paul Mack
Respondence with Jimmy <a...@for.it.please> ...
G'day Jimmy,
On Fri, 06 Sep 1996 19:22:53 GMT,
you wrote to everyone via usenet ...
[deleted crap]
> Normally I would attach my e-mail address right here however you can't have
> it <g>
From your letter header
I guess postm...@zippo.com might be a good address to end this.
Regards, Paul.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Paul Mack <paul...@minerva.dialix.oz.au> :::: Melbourne - Australia ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>> And now a word from the NUL device ... " "! <<
Joe Bernstein
In article <322D2B...@mbox200.swipnet.se>,
Jan....@mbox200.swipnet.se wrote:
>Jimmy wrote:
>
>> Well you see that is what makes this work so well ! The only way you would
>> go to such lengths is if you really had something important to discuss with
>> me which obviously you did not and so there's one more unsolicited e-mail
>> I've avoided =) And if I was asking a question that required an e-mail
>> reply I would include my e-mail address however I dont often do that...
>
>You don't get it do you?
>
>The point is that you are telling people to use Usenet for their private
>communication with you. Usenet wasn't intended for that. Some of us
>actually pay money to read news. You are in fact saying it's OK for a
>lot of people to pay extra money when someone wants to communicate
>privately with you.
It appears pretty clear that "Jimmy" isn't going to like any solution
other than that he is currently using, but a more restrained version seen
elsewhere (used by Rich Tietjens) is to use the e-mail address
**real-a...@real.site
in your From: header, and then put in your .sig "Strip the asterisks from
my address if you want to e-mail me".
This still allows people to send you unsolicited e-mail, but foils the
e-mail spammers whose practices are the only justification for this sort
of workaround.
Also, the odds of your fake address being someone else's real address drop
dramatically if you do things this way, since you'll presumably be able to
find out whether addresses at your own site ever start with **. (What's
that you're saying? there's no "please" top-level domain? Don't assume
things will always be that way...)
Note, by the way. If everyone did things "Jimmy"'s way, Usenet would
collapse, because nobody would know anybody else's e-mail addresses.
Somebody would have to post theirs in order to start any conversation.
Whereas if everyone did things Rich Tietjens' way, things would be only
slightly more annoying (except for moderators of moderated newsgroups).
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, free-lance writer, bank clerk, and bookstore worker
speaking for myself and nobody else j...@sfbooks.com
but... co-proponent for soc.history.ancient, now under
discussion in news.groups