Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:41:06  
uk.net.news.moderation Adam Funk 

>On 2009-08-26, Wm... wrote:
>>From a technical (rather than content) POV the modbot should
>> either accept or reject.  Altering (some might call it fixing) the
>> References: header or similar would be A Very Bad Thing.
>>
>> The general rule is that a transport (in this case the modbot) can add
>> to the headers but should not taketh away or otherwise mess about with
>> them. [1]
>>
>> [1] X-Trace (in the case of the ulm modbot) and other X-headers are not
>> viewed quite as strictly and I don't have a problem with how the modbot
>> treats them.
>
>Good point; I agree.
>
>I think it would be entirely legitimate to auto-reject posts with
>"short" reference loops on technical grounds, however.

You write the algorithm and I'll persuade RA :)

The Todal has realised his problem was local, we should all be pleased 
about that and well done to him for saying so.

slrn is (or was last time I used it) configurable about how noisy it is 
about minor infringements.

Given The Todal has realised his end, are we left with slrn 
complainants?

TP (check my headers) is ferociously compliant and doesn't see a problem 
that slrn users (Adam and Jon) see.  (There may be others).

To suggest that the uk.l.m modbot should be altered to accommodate slrn 
fussiness is, I hope you agree, a bit OTT.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days