From: Matthias Andree (ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de)
Date: Wed Apr 02 2003 - 16:43:42 CST
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
> You folks *really* need to go read the news.software.nntp discussion about
> xBin. The reason not to use Path, or for that matter anything other than
> message ID, is because you want something that you can filter during
> CHECK/IHAVE, and relying on your upstreams to pre-filter before sending
> you the feed is a nice idea in theory and a lost cause in practice. Like
> it or hate it, and I mostly hate it, using the message ID solves practical
> real-world problems in efficient and significant ways, and the other
> proposed solutions kind of... don't.
So is your suggestion to register and reserve a special, invalid
top-level domain name such as "binary" so it can be included in the
Message-ID?
It doesn't solve Jürgen's "may be forged" issue: spammers will just omit
the ".binary" tag. And it will take quite some time to become efficient
-- the problem with the Message-ID is that you can't change it later (so
you can't just add a .binary tag when you figure the message is binary
-- you'd cause dupes that way).
-- Matthias Andree