From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Aug 08 2001 - 04:44:39 CDT
In <200108072137.RAA29455@darkstar.prodigy.com> davidsen@prodigy.com (Bill Davidsen) writes:
>chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) wrote:
>> I think the only safe way of moving an article is to place it in the
>> newgroup exactly as-is. At least, that is what the newsreaders should see.
>> What the server does internally for its own convenience it its own affair.
>Moving it so that the Newsgroups line doesn't match the group will cause
>followups to go to the old group. If you move at all you need to change
>stuff and use the same cautions as any other REPOST, because that's the
>closest existing model I can identify.
No, I don't think so. Assuming there is no Followup-To header, a
newsreader will direct all followups to whatever was in the Newsgroups
header. It will take no notice at all of what group it thought it was
reading at the time, or of what was in any Xref header (posting of
completely new articles is a different matter, of course).
Surely, noone is suggesting that the Newsgroups header be altered? That
would be totally contrary to the fundamental "dont't tinker after
injection" policy that permeates our whole draft.
So followups in existing threads will tend to get posted to oldgroup,
except insofar as participants correct them manually. That is why it is so
desirable that servers should nevertheless make them appear in newgroup,
by the use of the aliasing mechanism or otherwise. The users of such
servers should hardly notice any difference.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5