From: ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} (n9505834@cit.nepean.uws.edu.au)
Date: Sun Jul 19 1998 - 22:02:53 CDT
> On Mon, Jul 13, 1998 at 11:50:18AM +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
[...]
> > If the article contains a cancel lock, then you MUST NOT accept a
> > cancel
> > without a matching unlocking key.
>
> Then my question still stands. Until most sites are denying all cancels
> on articles that contain no locks, they will be allowing any cancel on
> articles that contain no locks.
Or dissallowing cancels altold, as meany sites are doing nowdays.
> So if you are an injector, and an article comes in from a user with no
lock,
> the question of whether to add a lock is complex.
Yes, I think the answer of what to do depeands on your userbase and what
the site admin thinks his users should be able to get up to. Some sites
may wish to ban first party cancels and force peaple to ring up tech
support to get anything canceled. Other sites may wish to leave it up to
there users own reconnocince.
> If you do, you will be able to cancel, but the user will not be able to
> at sites that check, nor will anybody else.
Well untill thay ask me.
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia; see the url. Support NoCeM
http://www.cit.nepean.uws.edu.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html http://www.cm.org/
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument