From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Date: Mon Aug 06 2001 - 18:10:55 CDT
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > So would a fair summary be to say that the present INN mechanisms are
> > "Ugly" (I think that was your word) and need to be fixed when tuits are
> > available? And that when it gets fixed, making it cope sensibly with
> > aliasing and mvgroup could be incorporated as part of the fix without
> > undue extra difficulty? But that this particular fix (though desirable)
> > is low on the priority list at the moment?
>
> That sounds fair.
Aliasing is reasonable functional now in INN, as opposed to some other
packages I could mention. really question the idea of moving the
posts at all, as opposed to just making the old group read-only, or
vanish, preferable both, in that order.
> >> That leaves incorrect information in the Xref header of the article.
>
> > Yes, but in a revised system you might not need to change it at all.
>
> The only way that one can avoid having to change the article is if the
> Xref header isn't actually included in the article but instead is faked up
> by nnrpd whenever the article is retrieved. That's almost as ugly to me.
> Readers expect the header to be present, and having it be present but
> incorrect is just a recipe for disaster IMO.
I have misgivings about moving a post. In the past I did make a copy of
posts, with a new message-ID, labeled as a repost, with a header line
called something like X-Originally-Post-To or some such. I did it just
once, not as an ongoing thing, and I stopped accepting new posts in the
old group.
Since Russ and I agree that it won't matter what you do, many sites will
ignore you, I'm not a fan of anything but a quick cutover.
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me