From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Jun 01 2001 - 05:30:19 CDT
In <87ofsavu2n.fsf@zz9.stanford.edu> Brian Palmer <bpalmer@stanford.edu> writes:
>chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
>> Yes, that is clearly an error in the newgroup control. If you accept the
>> message (or if you already take the group) then it MUST be moderated. I
>> have changed it to:
>>
>> The "newgroup" control message requests that the specified group be
>> created or changed. If the request is honoured, or if the group already
>> exists on the serving agent, and if the newgroup-flag "moderated" is
>> present, then the group MUST be marked as moderated.
>That wording is probably not correct. This seems to say that if I send
>a newgroup message for an existing group, it then MUST be moderated on
>all servers that receive the message. (Example: I send a newgroup
>message for news.groups marking it moderated).
What I was trying to say is that, somehow, we MUST bring about the
situation where a group either IS moderated or IS NOT moderated throughout
Usenet. So if you accepted the newgroup to create the group in the first
place, then you have no option (other than removing the group) to making
it moderated.
The problem you raise is that the 2nd newgroup might be bogus... That is a
problem that needs to be fixed for ALL the control messages. At present we
have the following wording:
The descriptions below are generally phrased in terms suggesting
mandatory actions, but any or all of these MAY be subject to local
administrative restrictions, and MAY be denied or referred to an
administrator for approval (either as a class or on a case-by-case
basis). Analogously, where the description below specifies that a
message or portion thereof is to be ignored, this action MAY include
reporting it to an administrator.
That is actually not quite right, becuase the MUST/SHOULD/MAYs that are
actually present are all regarding the form of a correct control message.
It does not actually say anywhere that you MUST/SHOULD/MAY honour them
(except for the two places concerned with keeping moderation status
correct).
So I have changed that wording to:
For convenience, the descriptions below are phrased on the assumption
that control messages will be honoured by sites receiving them.
Naturally, this does not apply where they have not been issued by the
appropriate administrative agencies (and sites SHOULD take such steps
as are reasonable practicable to validate their authenticity).
Moreover, acceptance of such messages MAY be subject to local
administrative restrictions, and MAY be denied or referred to an
administrator for approval (either as a class or on a case-by-case
basis). Analogously, where the description below specifies that a
message or portion thereof is to be ignored, this action MAY include
reporting it to an administrator.
For the newsgroup message, I had omitted the case where a group might
cease to be moderated, so I now have:
The "newgroup" control message requests that the specified group be
created or changed. If the request is honoured, or if the group already
exists on the serving agent, and if the newgroup-flag "moderated" is
present, then the group MUST be marked as moderated, and vice versa.
"Moderated" is the only such flag defined by this standard; other flags
MAY be defined for use in cooperating subnets, but newgroup messages
containing them MUST NOT be acted on outside of those subnets.
>> The absence of
>> this flag marks the group as unmoderated. "Moderated" is the only such
>> flag defined by this standard; other flags MAY be defined for use in
>> cooperating subnets, but newgroup messages containing them MUST NOT be
>> acted on outside of those subnets.
>Just to clarify, if a group is being created within and without a
>cooperating subnet, and the subnet wants to use another such flag, two
>newgroup messages must be sent?
I think that a flag meaningful only inside the subnet is safe, since it
MUST be ignored outside. If they were doing something really strange, like
having it unmoderated inside but moderated outside, then two messages
might be necessary (and I just hope the wrong one doesn't leak).
-- 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