From: ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} (n9505834@cit.nepean.uws.edu.au)
Date: Sun Jul 19 1998 - 22:05:35 CDT
On 14 Jul 1998, [ISO-8859-1] Claus André Färber wrote:
> Date: 14 Jul 1998 09:24:00 +0200
> From: "[ISO-8859-1] Claus André Färber"
<usenet-format-list@faerber.muc.de>
> To: usenet-format@clari.net
> Subject: Re: Third party cancels
> Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 01:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
> Resent-From: usenet-format@clari.net
>
> Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> schrieb:
> > So why not make the cancel lock part of the syntax of those headers?
> > E.g.
> > From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> (Cancel-lock: SDK4385JF43FD3)
>
> Saves exaclty one octet per article (or adds one if converted to Un*x
> line ending conventions).
And adds it to being a part of the X-Over database, which would speed some
things up. However its a bad idear for other resons (such as giving
meaning to a comment).
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