From: Claus Färber (list-ietf-wg-apps-usefor@faerber.muc.de)
Date: Sat Sep 29 2001 - 08:24:00 CDT
Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> schrieb/wrote:
> As for Clive's suggestion that we should now discuss cancels a
> little more, I entirely agree. The simplest way to implement
> multiple cancels would be to allow multiple message-ids in a
> single cancel message (indeed Henry already implemented that in
> CNews in a fit of enthusiasm) and it would hardly require rocket
> science to incorporate it into other serving agents.
I'd prefer a more general solution where it is not only possible
to just cancel the message but to specify _why_ it has been
cancelled.
For example, a site might agree with a cancel message issuer on
what constitutes spam but not on what constitutes an illegal
message (due too lack of congruent legislations, for example).
Reasons could include:
. spam (including determined BI)
. illegal content (specifying the legistlation[s] where the issuer
thinks this is true).
. offensive content
. (in)valid signature:
. while signing is mandatory in the group
. while signing is mandatory for this type of message (e.g.
control messages)
. while signing is NOT mandatory.
. [...]
Even better, cancelling should not be the only possible action;
instead, such a message should assign certain attributes to a
message, such as a score, which can, depending on the site's
setup, have the same effect as cancelling.
For example, a message could assign a score from -1.0 to +1.0 to a
message, the site administrator could assign a custom factor for
each issuer-reason(-group) tuple and a threshold for each group
below which the article is removed immediatly/not forwarded/not
forwarded to certain sits.
Claus
-- ------------------------ http://www.faerber.muc.de/ ------------------------ OpenPGP: DSS 1024/639680F0 E7A8 AADB 6C8A 2450 67EA AF68 48A5 0E63 6396 80F0